https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457584 Limitation objection failed because the award copy had been returned unserved at the petitioner's addresses, the later discovery of the award was accepted as bona fide, and the petition was filed soon thereafter. The arbitral award was then found unsustainable because it enforced one-sided contractual terms requiring restrictive notice, exaggerated pre-estimated damages, heavy arbitration and litigation costs, and blank cheques. Those stipulations were treated as unconscionable, opposed to public policy, and contrary to Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act, 1872, making the award liable to interference under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 20:31:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457584 Limitation objection failed because the award copy had been returned unserved at the petitioner's addresses, the later discovery of the award was accepted as bona fide, and the petition was filed soon thereafter. The arbitral award was then found unsustainable because it enforced one-sided contractual terms requiring restrictive notice, exaggerated pre-estimated damages, heavy arbitration and litigation costs, and blank cheques. Those stipulations were treated as unconscionable, opposed to public policy, and contrary to Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act, 1872, making the award liable to interference under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457584