https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760535 An arbitral award was upheld where the tribunal treated the remaining service tax dispute on non-compete fee as academic after the underlying demand had already been quashed in tax proceedings. The High Court found no jurisdictional error, excess of reference, patent illegality, or public policy violation because Section 34 review is limited and the award did not contradict the contract or the Arbitration Act. It also held that rejection of supplementary claims for pre-deposit expenses, borrowings interest, litigation costs, arbitral costs, and related Section 23(3) applications caused no interference, since those claims were not contractually fastened on the respondent and were unsupported by evidence. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Oct 2024 08:19:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760535 An arbitral award was upheld where the tribunal treated the remaining service tax dispute on non-compete fee as academic after the underlying demand had already been quashed in tax proceedings. The High Court found no jurisdictional error, excess of reference, patent illegality, or public policy violation because Section 34 review is limited and the award did not contradict the contract or the Arbitration Act. It also held that rejection of supplementary claims for pre-deposit expenses, borrowings interest, litigation costs, arbitral costs, and related Section 23(3) applications caused no interference, since those claims were not contractually fastened on the respondent and were unsupported by evidence. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760535