https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456184 Judicial interference with an arbitral award is confined to patent legal infirmity or an evident jurisdictional defect, and the court will not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because another conclusion is possible. Objections alleging error apparent on the face of the record and that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the contract failed where the award stayed within the agreement and no manifest defect was shown. On claims 8 and 9, the award set out the rival contentions, referred to the material relied upon, and disclosed sufficient reasons for the lump-sum compensation. The challenge was therefore rejected and the award was sustained. en-us Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jul 2024 10:50:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456184 Judicial interference with an arbitral award is confined to patent legal infirmity or an evident jurisdictional defect, and the court will not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because another conclusion is possible. Objections alleging error apparent on the face of the record and that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the contract failed where the award stayed within the agreement and no manifest defect was shown. On claims 8 and 9, the award set out the rival contentions, referred to the material relied upon, and disclosed sufficient reasons for the lump-sum compensation. The challenge was therefore rejected and the award was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456184