https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436094 A firm-price purchase order for imported equipment was construed as not making the respondent liable for foreign exchange variation, because the final contract omitted an express exchange-rate clause that had appeared in the draft and the negotiations showed only that the U.S. dollar component was to remain firm. The majority arbitral view, upheld by the Single Judge, was treated as a plausible contractual construction, so the claim for exchange variation failed. On appellate review under section 37, the Court reiterated that interference is confined to limited grounds and that a plausible arbitral view cannot be replaced by another possible view. The minority award could not be accepted, as that would amount to impermissible modification of the award. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Apr 2023 21:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436094 A firm-price purchase order for imported equipment was construed as not making the respondent liable for foreign exchange variation, because the final contract omitted an express exchange-rate clause that had appeared in the draft and the negotiations showed only that the U.S. dollar component was to remain firm. The majority arbitral view, upheld by the Single Judge, was treated as a plausible contractual construction, so the claim for exchange variation failed. On appellate review under section 37, the Court reiterated that interference is confined to limited grounds and that a plausible arbitral view cannot be replaced by another possible view. The minority award could not be accepted, as that would amount to impermissible modification of the award. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436094