https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769661 Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits interference with an arbitral award only on the narrow statutory grounds and does not allow reappreciation of evidence or substitution of another contractual interpretation. The arbitral tribunal had construed the clauses on liquidated damages, extension of time, and delay, and found that the contractor failed to complete the work within the extended period while the employer had reserved its right to levy damages. That view was held to be a plausible one on the material before it, and the Single Judge exceeded Section 34 jurisdiction by re-evaluating the contractual effect of the extension of time. The Division Bench was therefore correct in restoring the award and the challenge to liquidated damages failed. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769661 Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits interference with an arbitral award only on the narrow statutory grounds and does not allow reappreciation of evidence or substitution of another contractual interpretation. The arbitral tribunal had construed the clauses on liquidated damages, extension of time, and delay, and found that the contractor failed to complete the work within the extended period while the employer had reserved its right to levy damages. That view was held to be a plausible one on the material before it, and the Single Judge exceeded Section 34 jurisdiction by re-evaluating the contractual effect of the extension of time. The Division Bench was therefore correct in restoring the award and the challenge to liquidated damages failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769661