https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197619 A lease termination notice was held vague because it referred only generally to service breakdowns and did not identify any concrete contractual breach or default sufficient to invoke the termination clause, so invalid termination followed. Termination was also ineffective because it was addressed only to the original lessor and not to the subsequent owners who had stepped into the lessor's shoes and had already notified the lessee of their ownership. The arbitral award was not interfered with under Section 34 on public policy grounds, as there was no fraud, corruption, or conflict with fundamental policy or basic notions of justice, and the damages assessment was within the arbitrator's discretion. The award was sustained. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:58:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197619 A lease termination notice was held vague because it referred only generally to service breakdowns and did not identify any concrete contractual breach or default sufficient to invoke the termination clause, so invalid termination followed. Termination was also ineffective because it was addressed only to the original lessor and not to the subsequent owners who had stepped into the lessor's shoes and had already notified the lessee of their ownership. The arbitral award was not interfered with under Section 34 on public policy grounds, as there was no fraud, corruption, or conflict with fundamental policy or basic notions of justice, and the damages assessment was within the arbitrator's discretion. The award was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197619