<?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>2022 (1) TMI 307 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416842</link>
    <description>Post-award interest may include the interest component where the governing statute permits interest on the sum directed to be paid by the award, so the earlier view barring interest on interest was overruled and the award was restored on that point. The Memorandum of Understanding was treated as having merged into the later Implementation Agreement because the agreement&#039;s recitals and definitions incorporated the earlier document, making disputes under both instruments referable to arbitration. Interference with the award on contractual interpretation and premature termination was impermissible because Sections 34 and 37 allow only narrow review; a plausible arbitral construction could not be replaced by another view, and the finding of premature termination was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 May 2023 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 307 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416842</link>
      <description>Post-award interest may include the interest component where the governing statute permits interest on the sum directed to be paid by the award, so the earlier view barring interest on interest was overruled and the award was restored on that point. The Memorandum of Understanding was treated as having merged into the later Implementation Agreement because the agreement&#039;s recitals and definitions incorporated the earlier document, making disputes under both instruments referable to arbitration. Interference with the award on contractual interpretation and premature termination was impermissible because Sections 34 and 37 allow only narrow review; a plausible arbitral construction could not be replaced by another view, and the finding of premature termination was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>