RATIONALE
The principle of pro-arbitration was the backbone of the court’s reasoning. In making a determination as to whether the award should be enforced, the court heavily relied upon section 10 of the act which asks the court to exercise a spirit of non-interference when dealing with arbitration matters. This principle can be seen in the court’s refusal to investigate matters of fact which were held to be fully within the arbitrator’s power. Intervention by the court would only be sought where a party presents questions of law.
CASE RELEVANCE
- Section 10 of the Act requests the court to refrain from interfering with matters governed by the Arbitration Act. In practice, this provision has been interpreted to mean that a court will uphold an arbitration agreement that was validly concluded, and any challenges to a resulting award should be based on questions of law and not of fact, because questions of fact are solely within the domain of the arbitrator.
Section 36 (1) requires the High Court to enforce an award upon an application in writing. However, such enforcement is subject to section 37. Thus, a court will investigate whether there are grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement of an award before acceding to an application to enforce an arbitral award.
