https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389287 An arbitral award was challenged on the ground that parties were denied cross-examination and an opportunity to lead evidence, but the record showed consent to a procedure based on affidavits and documents, with closure of evidence recorded in the presence of parties and counsel. The later objection was therefore not enough to justify interference, as no statutory ground for setting aside the award was made out. The challenge that the arbitrator ignored individual claims and construction expenditure was also rejected because the award dealt with the competing claims and gave reasons for disallowing the expenditure claim for want of reliable proof. Judicial review under sections 34 and 37 remained confined to narrow limits. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Dec 2019 10:24:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389287 An arbitral award was challenged on the ground that parties were denied cross-examination and an opportunity to lead evidence, but the record showed consent to a procedure based on affidavits and documents, with closure of evidence recorded in the presence of parties and counsel. The later objection was therefore not enough to justify interference, as no statutory ground for setting aside the award was made out. The challenge that the arbitrator ignored individual claims and construction expenditure was also rejected because the award dealt with the competing claims and gave reasons for disallowing the expenditure claim for want of reliable proof. Judicial review under sections 34 and 37 remained confined to narrow limits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389287