Contractual disputes requiring interpretation of the agreement fall within a broad arbitration clause and are referable to the tribunal.

A dispute falls within a broadly worded arbitration clause where its determination requires recourse to the contract itself. The controversy over extension of time for delivery, and the objection that the appellants were brokers rather than principals, both depended on construing the contract and were therefore referable to arbitration. Once a dispute is shown to arise out of or in connection with the contract, the tribunal has jurisdiction and the court does not examine the merits of the underlying controversy. The appellate judgment was set aside and the award upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputes between the parties fell within the scope of the arbitration clause so as to confer jurisdiction on the arbitral tribunal to decide them.

Analysis: The contractual clause referred to all disputes, differences and claims arising out of or in connection with the contract. The principal controversy concerned the extension of time for delivery, which plainly arose under the contract. The objection that the appellants were brokers and not principals also depended upon the true construction of the contract and required recourse to the contract itself. A dispute that must be resolved by reference to the contract is a dispute under the contract and, therefore, within the arbitration clause. Once the dispute is referable to arbitration, the court does not go into the merits of the underlying controversy.

Conclusion: The disputes were within the arbitration clause and the arbitrators had jurisdiction to make the award.

Final Conclusion: The appellate judgment of the High Court was set aside and the order upholding the award was restored, with costs throughout to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute that requires recourse to the contract for its determination is a dispute under the contract and falls within a broadly worded arbitration clause.

---