<?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 593 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414812</link>
    <description>A composite reading of a contract containing extension clauses and liquidated damages terms may show that time is not treated as rigidly of the essence where the purchaser itself repeatedly granted extensions. Liquidated damages under Section 74 of the Contract Act were examined in light of the parties&#039; conduct, including waiver and later extension periods, and the arbitral view that actual loss had to be shown was held to be a plausible construction. Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was unwarranted because the award did not disclose perversity or patent illegality, and the award in favour of the contractor was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 May 2023 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 593 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414812</link>
      <description>A composite reading of a contract containing extension clauses and liquidated damages terms may show that time is not treated as rigidly of the essence where the purchaser itself repeatedly granted extensions. Liquidated damages under Section 74 of the Contract Act were examined in light of the parties&#039; conduct, including waiver and later extension periods, and the arbitral view that actual loss had to be shown was held to be a plausible construction. Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was unwarranted because the award did not disclose perversity or patent illegality, and the award in favour of the contractor was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>