https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435407 The Supreme Court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to reject the refund claims for two security deposits despite finding the contract termination unjustified under Clause 60.1. The Court ruled that both Clauses 17.4 and 60.1 justified the contract rescission and forfeiture of security deposits. Additionally, the Court modified the interest rate on advances for hypothecation of equipment from 18% to 12%, citing arbitrators' authority to award interest under the Arbitration Act unless expressly prohibited by the contract. The Court allowed the appeal and made no order as to costs. en-us Fri, 17 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 19 Mar 2023 21:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435407 The Supreme Court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to reject the refund claims for two security deposits despite finding the contract termination unjustified under Clause 60.1. The Court ruled that both Clauses 17.4 and 60.1 justified the contract rescission and forfeiture of security deposits. Additionally, the Court modified the interest rate on advances for hypothecation of equipment from 18% to 12%, citing arbitrators' authority to award interest under the Arbitration Act unless expressly prohibited by the contract. The Court allowed the appeal and made no order as to costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435407