https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297299 A claim for reimbursement of pre-project expenditure under an MOU was held time-barred because limitation began when the claimant treated the contract as terminated and sought reimbursement in December 2001. A later letter was treated only as a reminder, not as a fresh termination that would restart limitation. Subsequent negotiations or renegotiation did not suspend limitation absent an acknowledged liability or a clear agreement extending time. The arbitral tribunal had considered the correspondence, and the claimant's reliance on quantum meruit did not take the money claim outside the limitation bar. The challenge under Section 34 therefore failed. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:15:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297299 A claim for reimbursement of pre-project expenditure under an MOU was held time-barred because limitation began when the claimant treated the contract as terminated and sought reimbursement in December 2001. A later letter was treated only as a reminder, not as a fresh termination that would restart limitation. Subsequent negotiations or renegotiation did not suspend limitation absent an acknowledged liability or a clear agreement extending time. The arbitral tribunal had considered the correspondence, and the claimant's reliance on quantum meruit did not take the money claim outside the limitation bar. The challenge under Section 34 therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297299