<?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>2018 (7) TMI 2273 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303406</link>
    <description>Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, an arbitrator may award pre-reference, pendente lite and future interest unless the contract contains a clear and express bar; a clause merely stating that delayed payment will not make the employer liable for interest does not, by itself, exclude that power. On the facts, the clause was not wide enough to prohibit interest in arbitration, so the award of pre-reference and pendente lite interest was upheld. The reduction of the arbitral rate from 18% to 10% was also found unjustified because it rested only on the employer&#039;s public sector status, without any finding that the original rate was perverse or unreasonable; the higher rate was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2022 21:00:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=685606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 2273 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303406</link>
      <description>Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, an arbitrator may award pre-reference, pendente lite and future interest unless the contract contains a clear and express bar; a clause merely stating that delayed payment will not make the employer liable for interest does not, by itself, exclude that power. On the facts, the clause was not wide enough to prohibit interest in arbitration, so the award of pre-reference and pendente lite interest was upheld. The reduction of the arbitral rate from 18% to 10% was also found unjustified because it rested only on the employer&#039;s public sector status, without any finding that the original rate was perverse or unreasonable; the higher rate was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>