https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374206 Contemporaneous correspondence showed that the arbitral reference was not confined to the overrun claim of Rs. 2 crores but extended to all disputes and claims arising out of the collaboration agreement. The umpire's construction of the reference was a plausible reading of the materials and could not be displaced in proceedings under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court also held that an award cannot be set aside on a reappraisal of evidence or because another view is possible; interference lies only for jurisdictional error, misconduct, improper procurement, or absence of any evidence. The challenge failed and the award was restored in full. en-us Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:23:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374206 Contemporaneous correspondence showed that the arbitral reference was not confined to the overrun claim of Rs. 2 crores but extended to all disputes and claims arising out of the collaboration agreement. The umpire's construction of the reference was a plausible reading of the materials and could not be displaced in proceedings under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court also held that an award cannot be set aside on a reappraisal of evidence or because another view is possible; interference lies only for jurisdictional error, misconduct, improper procurement, or absence of any evidence. The challenge failed and the award was restored in full. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374206