https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198892 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a supplementary agreement dated June 20, 1942, finding it binding upon the Agents due to mutual consent. However, the Court deemed the award of additional expenses for establishment and contingencies as erroneous, emphasizing that arbitrators cannot exceed stipulated contract rates. Claims for revision of mandi charges were also rejected, as the contract terms were deemed binding. The Court set aside the award due to errors apparent on its face, emphasizing that contract terms cannot be disregarded without mutual agreement. The appeal was dismissed with costs. en-us Wed, 20 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:10:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198892 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a supplementary agreement dated June 20, 1942, finding it binding upon the Agents due to mutual consent. However, the Court deemed the award of additional expenses for establishment and contingencies as erroneous, emphasizing that arbitrators cannot exceed stipulated contract rates. Claims for revision of mandi charges were also rejected, as the contract terms were deemed binding. The Court set aside the award due to errors apparent on its face, emphasizing that contract terms cannot be disregarded without mutual agreement. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198892