https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198343 In arbitration challenges under Sections 34 and 37, refusal to reappreciate evidence was justified where the tribunal's findings on delay and absence of compensable loss were not shown to be perverse. A mere failure to object to deductions did not by itself bar a later challenge, and the validity of accord and satisfaction remained open on the evidence if assent was not truly voluntary. In disputes involving liquidated damages, the contract had to be read with Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, requiring proof of breach and compensable loss, though strict proof of actual loss may not always be necessary where a genuine pre-estimate is shown. Interference with the award was therefore unwarranted. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:49:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198343 In arbitration challenges under Sections 34 and 37, refusal to reappreciate evidence was justified where the tribunal's findings on delay and absence of compensable loss were not shown to be perverse. A mere failure to object to deductions did not by itself bar a later challenge, and the validity of accord and satisfaction remained open on the evidence if assent was not truly voluntary. In disputes involving liquidated damages, the contract had to be read with Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, requiring proof of breach and compensable loss, though strict proof of actual loss may not always be necessary where a genuine pre-estimate is shown. Interference with the award was therefore unwarranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198343