https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463077 A contractor's payment obligation to a subcontractor was treated as independent of whether the principal employer had released funds, because the contract did not make the subcontractor's entitlement conditional on actual receipt of payment by the contractor. The subcontractor's claim for work done and refundable security deposit survived the termination of the principal contract, and disputes between the contractor and principal employer could not extinguish that accrued liability. The arbitral award was also upheld because court review under Sections 34 and 37 is limited to perversity, patent illegality, or public policy grounds, and the tribunal's construction of the contract was plausible and supported by factual findings. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 20:49:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463077 A contractor's payment obligation to a subcontractor was treated as independent of whether the principal employer had released funds, because the contract did not make the subcontractor's entitlement conditional on actual receipt of payment by the contractor. The subcontractor's claim for work done and refundable security deposit survived the termination of the principal contract, and disputes between the contractor and principal employer could not extinguish that accrued liability. The arbitral award was also upheld because court review under Sections 34 and 37 is limited to perversity, patent illegality, or public policy grounds, and the tribunal's construction of the contract was plausible and supported by factual findings. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463077