https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469740 An arbitral award may be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where it ignores uncontroverted relevant evidence or contains a facial contradiction in its findings. The Madras HC found that the award did not consider the claimant's expert evidence, although it had not been cross-examined, and still rejected the claim. It also noted an internal inconsistency because the award recorded that neither party had breached the contract, yet sustained termination on breach. The award was therefore treated as vitiated by perversity, irrationality and patent illegality, and was interfered with to the extent it rejected the contractor's claim. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 13:06:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469740 An arbitral award may be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where it ignores uncontroverted relevant evidence or contains a facial contradiction in its findings. The Madras HC found that the award did not consider the claimant's expert evidence, although it had not been cross-examined, and still rejected the claim. It also noted an internal inconsistency because the award recorded that neither party had breached the contract, yet sustained termination on breach. The award was therefore treated as vitiated by perversity, irrationality and patent illegality, and was interfered with to the extent it rejected the contractor's claim. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469740