https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457762 A Delhi High Court commentary on Section 34 review of an arbitral award explains that courts will not reappreciate evidence or replace the tribunal's contractual interpretation where the award is reasoned and supported by admissions. The court upheld termination for non-payment of annual licence fee because the fee was a distinct contractual obligation and the security deposit did not create a right of set-off. It also upheld the balance advance development cost award, the refusal of interest on the refunded security deposit, and rejected the delay objection, finding the award was made within the extended period. en-us Tue, 08 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 23:32:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457762 A Delhi High Court commentary on Section 34 review of an arbitral award explains that courts will not reappreciate evidence or replace the tribunal's contractual interpretation where the award is reasoned and supported by admissions. The court upheld termination for non-payment of annual licence fee because the fee was a distinct contractual obligation and the security deposit did not create a right of set-off. It also upheld the balance advance development cost award, the refusal of interest on the refunded security deposit, and rejected the delay objection, finding the award was made within the extended period. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457762