https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87781 SC affirmed the arbitral award, holding that the Development Agreement remained binding after the Supplementary Agreement failed to meet its conditions precedent. The court found L&T committed fundamental breaches by abandoning the project, failing to pay External Development Charges, and not fulfilling contractual obligations. The termination by PCL was justified. The court emphasized its limited powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, confirming it cannot modify arbitral awards but only set aside or remand under specific circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original arbitral tribunal's findings of coercion and breach of contract by L&T. en-us Sat, 26 Apr 2025 08:30:52 +0530 Sat, 26 Apr 2025 08:30:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87781 SC affirmed the arbitral award, holding that the Development Agreement remained binding after the Supplementary Agreement failed to meet its conditions precedent. The court found L&T committed fundamental breaches by abandoning the project, failing to pay External Development Charges, and not fulfilling contractual obligations. The termination by PCL was justified. The court emphasized its limited powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, confirming it cannot modify arbitral awards but only set aside or remand under specific circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original arbitral tribunal's findings of coercion and breach of contract by L&T. Highlights Indian Laws Sat, 26 Apr 2025 08:30:52 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87781