https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310341 For a foreign-seated arbitration, limitation was treated as part of the curial law of the seat rather than the substantive law of the contract, so Malaysian limitation law governed the claims and they were held to be within time. Compound interest consistent with the contract was not, by itself, contrary to public policy, and the objections to enforcement under Section 48 were rejected because the statutory grounds for refusing enforcement are narrow. The challenge to the foreign award therefore failed, and the award was upheld in substance. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:29:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310341 For a foreign-seated arbitration, limitation was treated as part of the curial law of the seat rather than the substantive law of the contract, so Malaysian limitation law governed the claims and they were held to be within time. Compound interest consistent with the contract was not, by itself, contrary to public policy, and the objections to enforcement under Section 48 were rejected because the statutory grounds for refusing enforcement are narrow. The challenge to the foreign award therefore failed, and the award was upheld in substance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310341