https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296800 Section 34 interference remains limited to perversity, patent illegality, or public policy grounds, and a court will not re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. The arbitral finding that the 5th running account bill was payable was upheld because the arbitrator considered the contract, the bill, the TDS certificate, the absence of a contemporaneous dispute, and the surrounding record. Alleged inconsistencies were held insufficient to show no evidence, ignored material, or violation of basic justice. Interest in successive stages was also sustained as within arbitral jurisdiction and not barred by the contract or Section 31(7), and the costs award was not treated as a ground for interference. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Aug 2021 08:49:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296800 Section 34 interference remains limited to perversity, patent illegality, or public policy grounds, and a court will not re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. The arbitral finding that the 5th running account bill was payable was upheld because the arbitrator considered the contract, the bill, the TDS certificate, the absence of a contemporaneous dispute, and the surrounding record. Alleged inconsistencies were held insufficient to show no evidence, ignored material, or violation of basic justice. Interest in successive stages was also sustained as within arbitral jurisdiction and not barred by the contract or Section 31(7), and the costs award was not treated as a ground for interference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296800