https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195361 A contractor's quantified final-bill claim was treated as validly arbitrable because it had crystallised and was specifically referred to arbitration, so the award on that amount was sustained. A separate claim for money lying in deposit was not within the arbitral reference and could not be decreed by the trial court; the setting aside of that part of the decree was upheld, while the further remand for fresh arbitration was rejected. On interest, an express contractual bar prevented pendente lite interest on delayed or withheld payments, but post-award interest was still supportable under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. en-us Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195361 A contractor's quantified final-bill claim was treated as validly arbitrable because it had crystallised and was specifically referred to arbitration, so the award on that amount was sustained. A separate claim for money lying in deposit was not within the arbitral reference and could not be decreed by the trial court; the setting aside of that part of the decree was upheld, while the further remand for fresh arbitration was rejected. On interest, an express contractual bar prevented pendente lite interest on delayed or withheld payments, but post-award interest was still supportable under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195361