https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425206 In Section 34 review of an arbitral award, a plausible contractual interpretation on liability for unpaid export invoices and ECGC cover was left undisturbed, but unsupported monetary components were not. The court found 24% interest on the invoice claims excessive and reduced it to a reasonable rate above 12% was not sustained. Liability for loss of six kgs of gold was upheld, yet the excess quantification lacked evidentiary basis and was trimmed to the admitted contemporaneous value. The deferred payment interest claim was also set aside for want of particulars, computation details, and contractual support. The decision reiterates that arbitral findings based on a possible view are protected, but quantified awards must rest on discernible evidence. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jul 2022 21:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425206 In Section 34 review of an arbitral award, a plausible contractual interpretation on liability for unpaid export invoices and ECGC cover was left undisturbed, but unsupported monetary components were not. The court found 24% interest on the invoice claims excessive and reduced it to a reasonable rate above 12% was not sustained. Liability for loss of six kgs of gold was upheld, yet the excess quantification lacked evidentiary basis and was trimmed to the admitted contemporaneous value. The deferred payment interest claim was also set aside for want of particulars, computation details, and contractual support. The decision reiterates that arbitral findings based on a possible view are protected, but quantified awards must rest on discernible evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425206