https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193971 A limitation objection to an arbitral counterclaim based on facts and correspondence could not be raised for the first time in Section 34 proceedings where no foundation had been laid before the tribunal. The court also upheld recovery for excess consumption of free issue material, finding that the contract did not bar recovery and that the arbitral findings on excess consumption were not perverse. A correction under Section 33 was likewise sustained because it addressed a computational error within the tribunal's power to correct clerical or arithmetic mistakes. The award, as corrected, was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:12:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193971 A limitation objection to an arbitral counterclaim based on facts and correspondence could not be raised for the first time in Section 34 proceedings where no foundation had been laid before the tribunal. The court also upheld recovery for excess consumption of free issue material, finding that the contract did not bar recovery and that the arbitral findings on excess consumption were not perverse. A correction under Section 33 was likewise sustained because it addressed a computational error within the tribunal's power to correct clerical or arithmetic mistakes. The award, as corrected, was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193971