https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195065 An arbitral award granting overrun charges was found not liable to interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because the tribunal relied on the work order, contemporaneous correspondence and the contractual basis for extended site maintenance and running costs. By contrast, the award of pre-suit and pendente lite interest was held unsustainable where the work order expressly barred interest and Section 28(3) required the tribunal to decide in accordance with the contract. That part of the award was set aside, while post-award interest was sustained. The result was only partial interference with the award, limited to the interest component. en-us Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:18:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195065 An arbitral award granting overrun charges was found not liable to interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because the tribunal relied on the work order, contemporaneous correspondence and the contractual basis for extended site maintenance and running costs. By contrast, the award of pre-suit and pendente lite interest was held unsustainable where the work order expressly barred interest and Section 28(3) required the tribunal to decide in accordance with the contract. That part of the award was set aside, while post-award interest was sustained. The result was only partial interference with the award, limited to the interest component. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195065