https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274122 Interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 is not warranted where the tribunal's decision is supported by cogent reasons, including consideration of site conditions and the parties' reciprocal contractual obligations, and no legal infirmity is shown. The commentary also notes that a challenge to the arbitrator's power to grant interest failed because the precedent relied on was distinguishable on the facts. The result stated is that the award was sustained and the objection to interest was upheld against interference. en-us Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Apr 2023 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274122 Interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 is not warranted where the tribunal's decision is supported by cogent reasons, including consideration of site conditions and the parties' reciprocal contractual obligations, and no legal infirmity is shown. The commentary also notes that a challenge to the arbitrator's power to grant interest failed because the precedent relied on was distinguishable on the facts. The result stated is that the award was sustained and the objection to interest was upheld against interference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274122