https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791660 Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the HC reiterated that it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own contractual interpretation for a plausible arbitral view unless the award shows patent illegality, perversity, or facial breach of the contract. Applying that standard, it upheld the award because the Tribunal had given reasoned findings on employer-caused delay and supported claims for prolongation costs, GST reimbursement, minimum wage escalation, environmental compensation charges, and consequential taxes on the awarded sums. The challenge was rejected, and the arbitral award was sustained in full. en-us Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2026 09:15:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791660 Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the HC reiterated that it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own contractual interpretation for a plausible arbitral view unless the award shows patent illegality, perversity, or facial breach of the contract. Applying that standard, it upheld the award because the Tribunal had given reasoned findings on employer-caused delay and supported claims for prolongation costs, GST reimbursement, minimum wage escalation, environmental compensation charges, and consequential taxes on the awarded sums. The challenge was rejected, and the arbitral award was sustained in full. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791660