<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (4) TMI 959 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459044</link>
    <description>An arbitral award may be sustained where the objection that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant demurrage charges under the agreement is not accepted, and the demurrage component remains upheld. Where the interest awarded is found to be excessive on its face, the Court may interfere by reducing that component, while leaving the decree interest unaffected. The arbitral interest was therefore reduced to 9%, with the award otherwise substantially confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2024 14:15:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 959 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459044</link>
      <description>An arbitral award may be sustained where the objection that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant demurrage charges under the agreement is not accepted, and the demurrage component remains upheld. Where the interest awarded is found to be excessive on its face, the Court may interfere by reducing that component, while leaving the decree interest unaffected. The arbitral interest was therefore reduced to 9%, with the award otherwise substantially confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>