https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460686 An arbitral award was upheld because the contractual clauses relied on by the objecting party did not expressly or by necessary implication bar the claims for escalation, idle labour, or retention-related damages. The tribunal's interpretation was sustained, especially since the finding that the employer caused about 20 months' delay was not challenged and the escalation bar was treated as limited to the originally contemplated contract period. The court reiterated that interference under Section 34 is confined to clear cases of perversity, patent illegality, or public policy violation, and not a reappreciation of the contract as in a regular appeal. The challenge failed and the award remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:34:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460686 An arbitral award was upheld because the contractual clauses relied on by the objecting party did not expressly or by necessary implication bar the claims for escalation, idle labour, or retention-related damages. The tribunal's interpretation was sustained, especially since the finding that the employer caused about 20 months' delay was not challenged and the escalation bar was treated as limited to the originally contemplated contract period. The court reiterated that interference under Section 34 is confined to clear cases of perversity, patent illegality, or public policy violation, and not a reappreciation of the contract as in a regular appeal. The challenge failed and the award remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460686