https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297029 The Delhi HC held that a reasoned factual apportionment of delay and partial disallowance of project cost would not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent arbitrariness, irrelevant considerations, or unsupported discrimination, so that challenge failed. It also held that, where reimbursement of transportation cost had been promised, the authority had to examine the reasonableness of the actual claim and could not confine payment to a normative rate without proper basis or notice; the matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration and any consequential reimbursement. The claim for interest was rejected because the scheme did not provide for it and no compelling facts justified implying such entitlement. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Mar 2026 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297029 The Delhi HC held that a reasoned factual apportionment of delay and partial disallowance of project cost would not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent arbitrariness, irrelevant considerations, or unsupported discrimination, so that challenge failed. It also held that, where reimbursement of transportation cost had been promised, the authority had to examine the reasonableness of the actual claim and could not confine payment to a normative rate without proper basis or notice; the matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration and any consequential reimbursement. The claim for interest was rejected because the scheme did not provide for it and no compelling facts justified implying such entitlement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297029