https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306754 An interim award under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as valid where the tribunal recorded reasons, relied on correspondence and revenue statements, and found clear admissions of liability; it was not a mere default order. The plea of equitable set-off failed because the cross-demands arose from different transactions and parties, and therefore fell outside the settled scope of equitable set-off. Pending inspection did not bar relief on the admitted claim, as it related only to an unproven counterclaim. The limitation objection also failed because the correspondence amounted to acknowledgment of liability. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2023 02:54:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306754 An interim award under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as valid where the tribunal recorded reasons, relied on correspondence and revenue statements, and found clear admissions of liability; it was not a mere default order. The plea of equitable set-off failed because the cross-demands arose from different transactions and parties, and therefore fell outside the settled scope of equitable set-off. Pending inspection did not bar relief on the admitted claim, as it related only to an unproven counterclaim. The limitation objection also failed because the correspondence amounted to acknowledgment of liability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306754