<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (11) TMI 417 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388168</link>
    <description>Clause 2 gave the Superintending Engineer final authority to determine liability and quantum for delay compensation, so disputes over pre-estimated liquidated damages were excluded from arbitration. Because the contract expressly made that determination final and treated such matters as excepted, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to reopen the levy or recast it as penalty. The award was therefore rightly interfered with insofar as it examined the compensation under Clause 2, and the contractor&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2019 06:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 417 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388168</link>
      <description>Clause 2 gave the Superintending Engineer final authority to determine liability and quantum for delay compensation, so disputes over pre-estimated liquidated damages were excluded from arbitration. Because the contract expressly made that determination final and treated such matters as excepted, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to reopen the levy or recast it as penalty. The award was therefore rightly interfered with insofar as it examined the compensation under Clause 2, and the contractor&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>