https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781861 A challenge to arbitral interest at 24% per annum in a commercial lending dispute failed because a high rate, by itself, does not violate public policy or the fundamental policy of Indian law. The SC held that Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits tribunal discretion on pre-award interest and a statutory default regime for post-award interest, while Section 34 review remains narrow and does not allow re-appreciation of evidence. The Court also rejected reliance on the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, holding that the older usury framework could not displace the arbitral regime in this commercial transaction. The award and its High Court affirmation were left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781861 A challenge to arbitral interest at 24% per annum in a commercial lending dispute failed because a high rate, by itself, does not violate public policy or the fundamental policy of Indian law. The SC held that Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits tribunal discretion on pre-award interest and a statutory default regime for post-award interest, while Section 34 review remains narrow and does not allow re-appreciation of evidence. The Court also rejected reliance on the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, holding that the older usury framework could not displace the arbitral regime in this commercial transaction. The award and its High Court affirmation were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781861