<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (11) TMI 1179 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185255</link>
    <description>An arbitral award will not be interfered with under section 34 where the challenge merely seeks reconsideration of settled law or factual quantification, and the award on compensation for subsequently imposed toll tax and service tax was upheld. Contractual compound interest, including for the post-award period, was sustained because the agreement expressly provided monthly compounding on unpaid sums. By contrast, an award granting extra payment for embankment work was set aside because the tribunal&#039;s reading of an unambiguous BOQ scheme was not a plausible interpretation of the contract and disregarded the contractual payment mechanism.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1179 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185255</link>
      <description>An arbitral award will not be interfered with under section 34 where the challenge merely seeks reconsideration of settled law or factual quantification, and the award on compensation for subsequently imposed toll tax and service tax was upheld. Contractual compound interest, including for the post-award period, was sustained because the agreement expressly provided monthly compounding on unpaid sums. By contrast, an award granting extra payment for embankment work was set aside because the tribunal&#039;s reading of an unambiguous BOQ scheme was not a plausible interpretation of the contract and disregarded the contractual payment mechanism.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>