https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184394 A speaking arbitral award will not be interfered with under Article 136 merely because a different view on the evidence or reasons is possible. The Court held that the arbitrator had considered the relevant material on delay, extension of time, site availability, rescission, and rival monetary claims, and that the question whether time was of the essence was a mixed question of law and fact. It further stated that arbitral proceedings are not governed in full rigour by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that interference is warranted only for violation of natural justice, non-consideration of relevant material, or a manifest legal infirmity. The challenge failed and the award remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2016 12:34:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184394 A speaking arbitral award will not be interfered with under Article 136 merely because a different view on the evidence or reasons is possible. The Court held that the arbitrator had considered the relevant material on delay, extension of time, site availability, rescission, and rival monetary claims, and that the question whether time was of the essence was a mixed question of law and fact. It further stated that arbitral proceedings are not governed in full rigour by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that interference is warranted only for violation of natural justice, non-consideration of relevant material, or a manifest legal infirmity. The challenge failed and the award remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184394