https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355425 A party cannot retain admitted contractual dues indefinitely on a mere apprehension of possible tax liability when the agreement does not give a clear right of retention. The Delhi HC noted that the withholding arose after adjustment of the payer's own dues, but the clauses relied on only supported indemnity for transaction-related liabilities and did not authorise indefinite retention of the balance amount. As the record also indicated that the tax dispute stemmed from a typographical error and the amount remained unpaid despite repeated demands, the arbitral tribunal was justified in awarding interest on the withheld sum. The Section 34 challenge therefore failed and the award was upheld. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:36:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355425 A party cannot retain admitted contractual dues indefinitely on a mere apprehension of possible tax liability when the agreement does not give a clear right of retention. The Delhi HC noted that the withholding arose after adjustment of the payer's own dues, but the clauses relied on only supported indemnity for transaction-related liabilities and did not authorise indefinite retention of the balance amount. As the record also indicated that the tax dispute stemmed from a typographical error and the amount remained unpaid despite repeated demands, the arbitral tribunal was justified in awarding interest on the withheld sum. The Section 34 challenge therefore failed and the award was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355425