https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445602 Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging an arbitral award in a coal supply contract dispute. The Arbitral Tribunal correctly interpreted contract clauses regarding BCD concessions, finding CVD was distinct from BCD and not covered under the relevant clause. The court upheld the tribunal's finding that claims were arbitrable despite fraud allegations, as they constituted simple fraud rather than serious fraud. The tribunal properly determined there was no coal shortage beyond permissible limits, making liquidated damages impermissible. Claims were found within limitation period based on joint reconciliation completion dates and arbitration notice timing. The court emphasized arbitrators' authority to interpret contracts and found no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 08:22:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445602 Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging an arbitral award in a coal supply contract dispute. The Arbitral Tribunal correctly interpreted contract clauses regarding BCD concessions, finding CVD was distinct from BCD and not covered under the relevant clause. The court upheld the tribunal's finding that claims were arbitrable despite fraud allegations, as they constituted simple fraud rather than serious fraud. The tribunal properly determined there was no coal shortage beyond permissible limits, making liquidated damages impermissible. Claims were found within limitation period based on joint reconciliation completion dates and arbitration notice timing. The court emphasized arbitrators' authority to interpret contracts and found no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445602