https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302408 In a section 34 challenge to an arbitral award arising from a joint operating agreement, the Delhi HC held that it would not disturb a plausible contractual interpretation adopted by the arbitrator or reopen factual findings. The respondent was competent to pursue the claim, as authority objections were not raised before the arbitrator and the agreement empowered the operator to recover dues and represent the venture. The petitioner remained liable for unpaid cash calls despite forfeiture of participating interest, and a fresh challenge to the account statement and quantum could not be raised for the first time in court. No interference was warranted on delay, negligence, or damages, and the award was sustained in full. en-us Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2022 10:29:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302408 In a section 34 challenge to an arbitral award arising from a joint operating agreement, the Delhi HC held that it would not disturb a plausible contractual interpretation adopted by the arbitrator or reopen factual findings. The respondent was competent to pursue the claim, as authority objections were not raised before the arbitrator and the agreement empowered the operator to recover dues and represent the venture. The petitioner remained liable for unpaid cash calls despite forfeiture of participating interest, and a fresh challenge to the account statement and quantum could not be raised for the first time in court. No interference was warranted on delay, negligence, or damages, and the award was sustained in full. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302408