<?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>1999 (4) TMI 648 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287374</link>
    <description>An arbitrator cannot grant compensation or escalation contrary to the contract, and an award that exceeds the agreement is liable to be set aside for legal misconduct under the Arbitration Act, 1940. On Claim No. 3, the contract placed on the contractor the risk of obtaining landowners&#039; consent and excluded the company&#039;s liability for claims arising from land use, so compensation for obstruction by local persons was beyond the agreement. On Claim No. 9, no escalation clause existed, and the award itself showed the contractor had accepted the wage increase without pressure, so the additional amount was unsupported by the contract and findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2020 11:25:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 648 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287374</link>
      <description>An arbitrator cannot grant compensation or escalation contrary to the contract, and an award that exceeds the agreement is liable to be set aside for legal misconduct under the Arbitration Act, 1940. On Claim No. 3, the contract placed on the contractor the risk of obtaining landowners&#039; consent and excluded the company&#039;s liability for claims arising from land use, so compensation for obstruction by local persons was beyond the agreement. On Claim No. 9, no escalation clause existed, and the award itself showed the contractor had accepted the wage increase without pressure, so the additional amount was unsupported by the contract and findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>