https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313447 In review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own contractual interpretation where the arbitral tribunal has taken a plausible view. The Supreme Court restored the award on variable charges, downrating, 4 MW power and netting out because the tribunal's findings were based on the parties' correspondence, supplementary arrangements and evidence, and no statutory ground for interference was shown. It also upheld post-award interest, finding no basis to reduce the rate on equitable considerations, and rejected procedural objections relating to expert appointment and document production because no prejudice or denial of natural justice was established. en-us Wed, 10 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313447 In review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own contractual interpretation where the arbitral tribunal has taken a plausible view. The Supreme Court restored the award on variable charges, downrating, 4 MW power and netting out because the tribunal's findings were based on the parties' correspondence, supplementary arrangements and evidence, and no statutory ground for interference was shown. It also upheld post-award interest, finding no basis to reduce the rate on equitable considerations, and rejected procedural objections relating to expert appointment and document production because no prejudice or denial of natural justice was established. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313447