https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778972 The parties' MoU fixed interest on refund of the advance at 21% per annum from the dates of disbursement until actual repayment, and the arbitral tribunal adopted that contractual regime in the award. Because the award itself covered interest up to repayment and did not provide for compounding, execution proceedings could not be used to enlarge the award by adding compound interest or further post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The claim for additional interest was therefore not maintainable, and restoration of full satisfaction of the award was upheld. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778972 The parties' MoU fixed interest on refund of the advance at 21% per annum from the dates of disbursement until actual repayment, and the arbitral tribunal adopted that contractual regime in the award. Because the award itself covered interest up to repayment and did not provide for compounding, execution proceedings could not be used to enlarge the award by adding compound interest or further post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The claim for additional interest was therefore not maintainable, and restoration of full satisfaction of the award was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778972