<?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>2009 (4) TMI 997 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195358</link>
    <description>An arbitral award may be set aside where the arbitrator ignores binding contractual terms, grants relief beyond the scope of the reference, or awards amounts unsupported by evidence or legal basis; on that reasoning, the awards on claim No. 1 and claim No. 37A were set aside. Interest on the contractor&#039;s claims was permissible in the absence of an express bar, but it had to conform to the statutory ceiling under the Interest Act, 1978, so the rate was reduced from 18% to 9% per annum. The remaining contractor claims and the upheld counter-claim were sustained because no jurisdictional error, legal misconduct, or patent error was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2023 17:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 997 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195358</link>
      <description>An arbitral award may be set aside where the arbitrator ignores binding contractual terms, grants relief beyond the scope of the reference, or awards amounts unsupported by evidence or legal basis; on that reasoning, the awards on claim No. 1 and claim No. 37A were set aside. Interest on the contractor&#039;s claims was permissible in the absence of an express bar, but it had to conform to the statutory ceiling under the Interest Act, 1978, so the rate was reduced from 18% to 9% per annum. The remaining contractor claims and the upheld counter-claim were sustained because no jurisdictional error, legal misconduct, or patent error was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>