https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273492 A challenge to an arbitral award for alleged denial of reasonable opportunity failed because the record showed repeated chances to file a counter, participate, and appear before the arbitrator, and no real prejudice was established under Section 34(2)(a)(iii). A second challenge based on excess of jurisdiction also failed because the contracts were interconnected, the disputes concerned the same products and territories, and the arbitration clause was broadly worded to cover disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement under Section 34(2)(a)(iv). The award was upheld. en-us Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:17:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273492 A challenge to an arbitral award for alleged denial of reasonable opportunity failed because the record showed repeated chances to file a counter, participate, and appear before the arbitrator, and no real prejudice was established under Section 34(2)(a)(iii). A second challenge based on excess of jurisdiction also failed because the contracts were interconnected, the disputes concerned the same products and territories, and the arbitration clause was broadly worded to cover disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement under Section 34(2)(a)(iv). The award was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273492