The court arrived at its decision by considering the arbitrability of fraud. As per the tripartite disjunctive test of deciding the arbitrability of fraud, the court held that the matter was arbitrable since it did not give rise to complex issues before the tribunal. Further, it was more desirable to uphold arbitration agreements between parties to prevent an erosion of faith in arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in the commercial world.
- As per section 35 (2)(a)(iv), an award may be challenged if the arbitrator has exceeded the scope of the matters referred to arbitration. This generally includes criminal proceedings. However, mere fraud as a criminal proceeding will not bar the arbitrator from exercising their jurisdiction where the fraud in question is in line with the tripartite test for illustrating the arbitrability of fraud.
- Section 32 (c) of the Arbitration Act gives the arbitrator power to decide upon the interest and the terms therein when issuing an award. It matters not whether the interest was awarded from a date that preceded the dispute.