https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197520 A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator unless the award is tainted by misconduct, excess of jurisdiction, improper procurement or other statutory invalidity. Applying that standard, the arbitral award allowing the supplier's claim was upheld because the arbitrator found supply, acceptance and no sustainable defence to payment. The purchaser's counter-claim was also restored as dismissed, since the remand was based only on a fresh assessment of evidence and the contractual risk-purchase mechanism had not been proved to have been invoked. The arbitrator was further held competent to award reasonable interest for the pre-reference, pendente lite and post-award periods where the contract was silent. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2024 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197520 A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator unless the award is tainted by misconduct, excess of jurisdiction, improper procurement or other statutory invalidity. Applying that standard, the arbitral award allowing the supplier's claim was upheld because the arbitrator found supply, acceptance and no sustainable defence to payment. The purchaser's counter-claim was also restored as dismissed, since the remand was based only on a fresh assessment of evidence and the contractual risk-purchase mechanism had not been proved to have been invoked. The arbitrator was further held competent to award reasonable interest for the pre-reference, pendente lite and post-award periods where the contract was silent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197520