https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174499 SC held that the arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction in deciding workmanship and contractual deduction claims because the clauses reserving finality to the Managing Director did not extend to poor workmanship, and the findings were supported by evidence with no perversity or patent illegality. It further held that, absent an express contractual bar, pre-reference interest could be awarded under the Arbitration Act, 1940; interest on an amount that had merged interest into the principal was not impermissible interest on interest, and interest on costs was also sustainable in principle. The award disclosed no patent error warranting interference, though the rate of interest was reduced from 15% to 7%. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174499 SC held that the arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction in deciding workmanship and contractual deduction claims because the clauses reserving finality to the Managing Director did not extend to poor workmanship, and the findings were supported by evidence with no perversity or patent illegality. It further held that, absent an express contractual bar, pre-reference interest could be awarded under the Arbitration Act, 1940; interest on an amount that had merged interest into the principal was not impermissible interest on interest, and interest on costs was also sustainable in principle. The award disclosed no patent error warranting interference, though the rate of interest was reduced from 15% to 7%. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174499