https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200771 Where the contract and APDSS barred compensation for delay, and the contractor had accepted extension of time without reserving a claim, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award delay damages under claim No. 1; that portion was set aside. A factual dispute on excess steel consumed under claim No. 8 was within the arbitrator's remit because the agreement contained no clear prohibition, so that award was upheld. Interest from the date of the award to the date of decree was impermissible in the absence of authority for post-award interest; it was deleted, with interest allowed only from the decree date to realisation. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200771 Where the contract and APDSS barred compensation for delay, and the contractor had accepted extension of time without reserving a claim, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award delay damages under claim No. 1; that portion was set aside. A factual dispute on excess steel consumed under claim No. 8 was within the arbitrator's remit because the agreement contained no clear prohibition, so that award was upheld. Interest from the date of the award to the date of decree was impermissible in the absence of authority for post-award interest; it was deleted, with interest allowed only from the decree date to realisation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200771