Arbitration time extension by post-reference consent and certainty of agreement survive challenge under commercial construction.

Under the Arbitration Act, the time for making an award may be enlarged by the parties' mutual consent even after the arbitrator has entered upon the reference, because section 28(2) invalidates only a unilateral power in the original agreement, not a later consensual extension. The article also notes that an arbitration agreement is not void for vagueness where, read in its commercial and factual context, it identifies the parties, the business, the disputes, and the matters for determination with sufficient certainty. Applied here, the award was not invalid for delay and the arbitration clause remained effective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time for making the arbitral award could be enlarged by the parties' mutual consent after the arbitrator had entered upon the reference, so as to save the award from being invalid for delay; (ii) Whether the arbitration agreement was void or ineffective for vagueness and uncertainty.

Issue (i): Whether the time for making the arbitral award could be enlarged by the parties' mutual consent after the arbitrator had entered upon the reference, so as to save the award from being invalid for delay.

Analysis: Clause 3 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act contemplates that an award be made within four months or within such extended time as the Court may allow, while section 28 vests the power to enlarge time in the Court and renders void any clause in the original agreement authorising the arbitrator to enlarge time without consent. The relevant construction, however, is that section 28(2) only invalidates a unilateral contractual power in the original agreement and does not prohibit a later consensus between the parties after the reference has commenced. Mutual consent given post-reference can validly authorise enlargement of time, because the parties remain free to modify their arbitration arrangement while the reference is pending.

Conclusion: The award was not invalid on the ground of delay; the enlargement of time by post-reference mutual consent was valid and supported the award.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitration agreement was void or ineffective for vagueness and uncertainty.

Analysis: The agreement, read with its preamble and in the context of the partnership business, identified the parties, the business in dispute, the accounts to be examined, and the matters the arbitrator was to determine. The clauses were capable of a sensible construction confined to the affairs of the partnership concern, and the reference was not rendered uncertain merely because related accounts of the sons or associated concerns were examined for verification of entries. The record also showed that the parties understood and acted upon the reference without objection before the arbitrator.

Conclusion: The arbitration agreement was not vague or uncertain and was valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the award on the two grounds accepted by the courts below failed, and the matter was sent back to the High Court to decide the remaining points according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Arbitration Act, post-reference mutual consent of the parties can validly extend the time for making an award, and an arbitration clause must be construed in its commercial context so that it is not invalidated for alleged vagueness where the disputes referred are sufficiently identifiable.

---