https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380925 Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot substitute its own contractual interpretation for a plausible view taken by the arbitral tribunal. The tribunal's reading of the escalation clause was a possible construction of the contract, so interference with the price-adjustment award was unjustified and that claim was restored. By contrast, the fixed-cost award lacked evidentiary support for actual loss and was rightly set aside. The escrow-account award was also unsustainable because returning the deposited amount would defeat the contractual and regulatory purpose of the escrow mechanism; the finding that this claim was perverse was upheld. en-us Mon, 27 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380925 Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot substitute its own contractual interpretation for a plausible view taken by the arbitral tribunal. The tribunal's reading of the escalation clause was a possible construction of the contract, so interference with the price-adjustment award was unjustified and that claim was restored. By contrast, the fixed-cost award lacked evidentiary support for actual loss and was rightly set aside. The escrow-account award was also unsustainable because returning the deposited amount would defeat the contractual and regulatory purpose of the escrow mechanism; the finding that this claim was perverse was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380925