https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465181 Section 34 interference with an arbitral award is confined to recognised grounds such as patent illegality or perversity, and not to reappreciation of evidence or a merits review. Perversity now falls within patent illegality only where a finding is based on no evidence, ignores vital evidence, or is not a possible view. Applying that standard, the arbitrator's award on idling charges was supported by a reasoned assessment and conservative computation, while the deduction of delay compensation was rejected because the contract issues were duly considered, time was found not to be of the essence throughout, and no proved loss justified compensation. The award therefore did not disclose jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465181 Section 34 interference with an arbitral award is confined to recognised grounds such as patent illegality or perversity, and not to reappreciation of evidence or a merits review. Perversity now falls within patent illegality only where a finding is based on no evidence, ignores vital evidence, or is not a possible view. Applying that standard, the arbitrator's award on idling charges was supported by a reasoned assessment and conservative computation, while the deduction of delay compensation was rejected because the contract issues were duly considered, time was found not to be of the essence throughout, and no proved loss justified compensation. The award therefore did not disclose jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465181