https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294972 A No Claim Certificate and undertaking did not bar the contractor's monetary claims where they were found to have been issued under coercion and duress, and the arbitrator's rejection of the full and final settlement defence was a plausible view. Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award was upheld to the extent it rested on a sustainable evidentiary basis, but interference was made where claims were duplicated, merged with other interest awards, or lacked any quantified foundation. Claims found perverse were set aside. The counterclaims were rejected for want of proof and were sustained. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 May 2021 08:27:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294972 A No Claim Certificate and undertaking did not bar the contractor's monetary claims where they were found to have been issued under coercion and duress, and the arbitrator's rejection of the full and final settlement defence was a plausible view. Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award was upheld to the extent it rested on a sustainable evidentiary basis, but interference was made where claims were duplicated, merged with other interest awards, or lacked any quantified foundation. Claims found perverse were set aside. The counterclaims were rejected for want of proof and were sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294972