https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755532 The Calcutta HC set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found the arbitrator acted beyond jurisdiction by awarding damages without evidence that the claimant had materials ready for supply at the relevant time. The claimant admitted requiring four months to supply balance quantities, negating any loss claim. The arbitrator violated contractual terms by making awards on components specifically debarred by the agreement, constituting patent illegality under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) and Section 34(2-A). The application challenging the award was allowed. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:16:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755532 The Calcutta HC set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found the arbitrator acted beyond jurisdiction by awarding damages without evidence that the claimant had materials ready for supply at the relevant time. The claimant admitted requiring four months to supply balance quantities, negating any loss claim. The arbitrator violated contractual terms by making awards on components specifically debarred by the agreement, constituting patent illegality under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) and Section 34(2-A). The application challenging the award was allowed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755532