https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185256 Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot interfere with a reasoned arbitral interpretation of contract terms merely because another view is possible. The Delhi High Court notes that the arbitral tribunal acted within jurisdiction on the contractor's price escalation claim, and that challenge to the award failed. It also explains that clause 14.3 fixed the relevant taxation date by reference to 28 days before bid submission; because that date preceded the tax increase, the later enhancement could not be passed to the contractor. The contractual tax burden therefore remained with the authority, and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185256 Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot interfere with a reasoned arbitral interpretation of contract terms merely because another view is possible. The Delhi High Court notes that the arbitral tribunal acted within jurisdiction on the contractor's price escalation claim, and that challenge to the award failed. It also explains that clause 14.3 fixed the relevant taxation date by reference to 28 days before bid submission; because that date preceded the tax increase, the later enhancement could not be passed to the contractor. The contractual tax burden therefore remained with the authority, and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185256