https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192736 An express contractual exclusion barred compensation for loss of unburnt bricks, and the arbitrator's contrary construction was a patent legal error, so that part of the award was unsustainable. A claim for ration and cloth could not be implied from negotiations or treated as a collateral contract because it was not incorporated into the written agreement, so that award also failed in law. Interest could not be granted on unliquidated claims where the Interest Act conditions were unmet, and an arbitrator could not invoke section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure by analogy. The challenged portions of the awards were set aside and the appeals were dismissed with costs. en-us Thu, 24 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:55:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192736 An express contractual exclusion barred compensation for loss of unburnt bricks, and the arbitrator's contrary construction was a patent legal error, so that part of the award was unsustainable. A claim for ration and cloth could not be implied from negotiations or treated as a collateral contract because it was not incorporated into the written agreement, so that award also failed in law. Interest could not be granted on unliquidated claims where the Interest Act conditions were unmet, and an arbitrator could not invoke section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure by analogy. The challenged portions of the awards were set aside and the appeals were dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192736