https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277123 Appointment of the presiding arbitrator was not invalid merely because it occurred after thirty days; the statutory bar under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only where the two party-appointed arbitrators actually fail to agree on the third arbitrator. The tribunal's constitution was therefore valid. On merits, the arbitral award was sustained because the findings on defective work, wrongful stoppage, retention money, bank guarantee, site engineer expenses, detention of tools and tackle, and loss of profit were supported by evidence and reasonable assessment. No perversity, misdirection, or legal error was shown, so interference under Section 34 was not warranted and the award was affirmed with costs. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:34:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277123 Appointment of the presiding arbitrator was not invalid merely because it occurred after thirty days; the statutory bar under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only where the two party-appointed arbitrators actually fail to agree on the third arbitrator. The tribunal's constitution was therefore valid. On merits, the arbitral award was sustained because the findings on defective work, wrongful stoppage, retention money, bank guarantee, site engineer expenses, detention of tools and tackle, and loss of profit were supported by evidence and reasonable assessment. No perversity, misdirection, or legal error was shown, so interference under Section 34 was not warranted and the award was affirmed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277123