https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358740 Section 34 interference with an arbitral award remains limited to public policy or patent illegality affecting the root of the matter, so findings based on evidence and contractual interpretation are not lightly disturbed. The Letter of Comfort requirement was treated as a substantive contractual condition; no clear waiver was proved, and non-furnishing constituted breach. A representation that the units had operated at 120 MW was found to be a material misrepresentation on the record, making the contracts voidable at the claimant's option. Recovery was allowed for proved work expenditures and the performance guarantee, but not for the advance-payment guarantees. en-us Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358740 Section 34 interference with an arbitral award remains limited to public policy or patent illegality affecting the root of the matter, so findings based on evidence and contractual interpretation are not lightly disturbed. The Letter of Comfort requirement was treated as a substantive contractual condition; no clear waiver was proved, and non-furnishing constituted breach. A representation that the units had operated at 120 MW was found to be a material misrepresentation on the record, making the contracts voidable at the claimant's option. Recovery was allowed for proved work expenditures and the performance guarantee, but not for the advance-payment guarantees. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358740