<?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 (6) TMI 1356 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306767</link>
    <description>In contracts with an excepted-matter clause, an arbitral tribunal may decide whether delay was attributable to the contractor, while the authority&#039;s finality is confined to quantification of compensation. Claims for labour cess, DVAT, escalation and overheads were upheld where the tribunal relied on contractual material, rate analysis, CPWD indices and the prolonged execution period, with no patent illegality or perversity shown. A counterclaim for loss of reputation and work was rejected as unsupported by contemporaneous evidence, and that dismissal was not interfered with under Section 34 or Section 37 absent public policy violation or patent illegality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2023 02:54:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=705473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 1356 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306767</link>
      <description>In contracts with an excepted-matter clause, an arbitral tribunal may decide whether delay was attributable to the contractor, while the authority&#039;s finality is confined to quantification of compensation. Claims for labour cess, DVAT, escalation and overheads were upheld where the tribunal relied on contractual material, rate analysis, CPWD indices and the prolonged execution period, with no patent illegality or perversity shown. A counterclaim for loss of reputation and work was rejected as unsupported by contemporaneous evidence, and that dismissal was not interfered with under Section 34 or Section 37 absent public policy violation or patent illegality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306767</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>