https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183632 Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was treated as procedural only and not as conferring a substantive right to file cross-objections in an appeal under Section 39, so Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked to sustain them. Pre-reference interest, even when described as damages, was payable only if authorised by agreement or by the Interest Act, 1978, and the claimed pre-reference component was set aside. The arbitrator remained competent to award pendente lite and future interest, which was upheld in principle. en-us Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:18:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183632 Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was treated as procedural only and not as conferring a substantive right to file cross-objections in an appeal under Section 39, so Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked to sustain them. Pre-reference interest, even when described as damages, was payable only if authorised by agreement or by the Interest Act, 1978, and the claimed pre-reference component was set aside. The arbitrator remained competent to award pendente lite and future interest, which was upheld in principle. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183632