<?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>2021 (11) TMI 295 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414514</link>
    <description>An arbitral award may be interfered with where it ignores express contractual terms and an applicable governing circular. The contract for sal seeds included State-incurred expenses such as handling and supervision charges, and also provided for supervision charges on delayed delivery. A government circular likewise contemplated such recovery, and the State had recovered the charges for years without protest. By treating the charges as indirect expenses and disallowing them contrary to the contract and circular, the tribunal committed patent illegality. The award was therefore set aside only to the extent it directed refund of supervision charges, while the remaining parts were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 295 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414514</link>
      <description>An arbitral award may be interfered with where it ignores express contractual terms and an applicable governing circular. The contract for sal seeds included State-incurred expenses such as handling and supervision charges, and also provided for supervision charges on delayed delivery. A government circular likewise contemplated such recovery, and the State had recovered the charges for years without protest. By treating the charges as indirect expenses and disallowing them contrary to the contract and circular, the tribunal committed patent illegality. The award was therefore set aside only to the extent it directed refund of supervision charges, while the remaining parts were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>