https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458779 Section 34 interference remains limited to cases where the arbitral tribunal's view is impossible, perverse, or contrary to contract or substantive law. Applying that standard, the Delhi HC noted that the tribunal had found, on facts, that delay in completion was attributable to the employer and that the contractor's no-claims endorsement was given in compelling circumstances; that finding was not shown to be patently illegal. The court also accepted that, even without an express escalation clause, compensation for increased labour and material costs may be sustained where delay is caused by the other party, and the tribunal's construction of the contract and evidence was possible and plausible. en-us Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:59:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458779 Section 34 interference remains limited to cases where the arbitral tribunal's view is impossible, perverse, or contrary to contract or substantive law. Applying that standard, the Delhi HC noted that the tribunal had found, on facts, that delay in completion was attributable to the employer and that the contractor's no-claims endorsement was given in compelling circumstances; that finding was not shown to be patently illegal. The court also accepted that, even without an express escalation clause, compensation for increased labour and material costs may be sustained where delay is caused by the other party, and the tribunal's construction of the contract and evidence was possible and plausible. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458779