<?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>2008 (2) TMI 925 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195718</link>
    <description>A commercial contract must be read as a whole, so a lump-sum price clause does not by itself exclude adjustments for variations and compensation events. The arbitration reference was valid because the contractual precondition of prior adjudication was satisfied when the Adjudicator failed to decide within the stipulated period. However, a contemporaneous letter expressly waived extra claims in return for extension of time and waiver of liquidated damages, and the surrounding correspondence confirmed that accord and satisfaction. Those waived claims were therefore not arbitrable, and an award granting them was set aside as perverse and patently illegal. The tribunal&#039;s constitution was upheld, but that did not save the award.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 925 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195718</link>
      <description>A commercial contract must be read as a whole, so a lump-sum price clause does not by itself exclude adjustments for variations and compensation events. The arbitration reference was valid because the contractual precondition of prior adjudication was satisfied when the Adjudicator failed to decide within the stipulated period. However, a contemporaneous letter expressly waived extra claims in return for extension of time and waiver of liquidated damages, and the surrounding correspondence confirmed that accord and satisfaction. Those waived claims were therefore not arbitrable, and an award granting them was set aside as perverse and patently illegal. The tribunal&#039;s constitution was upheld, but that did not save the award.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>