SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Cement Corporation of India - Appellant
Versus
Promac Engineering Industries Ltd. - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 410 of 2021
Decided On : 20-12-2021




The court held that challenges to procedural orders of an arbitral tribunal regarding fees do not fall within the scope of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 5 and Section 9 - Petition filed to challenge procedural order fixing fees by the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed - The relief sought does not qualify as interim measures under Section 9 - The tribunal's fixing of fees is procedural and does not breach statutory limits. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

(B) Judicial review of arbitral tribunal's procedural orders - The Court emphasized that challenges to such orders must stay within the scope defined by the Act and cannot be entertained outside those specified parameters. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the Arbitral Tribunal's decision fixing separate fees for counter-claims and sought fees adjustment not permissible under Schedule IV of the Act, as it would exceed the statutory limits.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the relief sought did not fall within the ambit of interim measures allowed under Section 9 of the Act.

Issues: The petition primarily addressed whether the Tribunal's fee fixation contravenes the statutory provisions related to fee limits stipulated by the A&C Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the petitioner's grievance regarding fee fixation does not constitute a claim of interim protection and rests strictly within procedural rules as defined by the A&C Act.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to arbitral tribunal's fee orders (Para 1 , 2)
2. scope of section 9 of the a&c act (Para 3 , 6)
3. previous petition dismissals affect current claims (Para 4 , 5)
4. dismissal of petition with reserved rights (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the `A&C Act'), inter alia, praying as under:

"a) set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 and 24.08.2021, in the interest of justice;

b) Declare Petitioner's calculation for Rs. 15,00,000/- as an arbitration fees payable to each of the arbitrators as just and correct calculation in terms of Schedule IV of the Act;"

2. The orders impugned by the petitioner (that are, orders dated 17.12.2018 and 24.08.2021) are procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the fee payable by the parties. The petitioner's grievance is that the Arbitral Tribunal has fixed a separate fee for counter-claims, which according to the petitioner, is not permissible as the total fee payable thereafter, would exceed the maximum fee fixed under Schedule IV of the A&C Act.

3. It is at once clear that the reliefs sought by the petitioner do not fall within the scope of interim measures of protection as under Section 9 of the A&C Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that a similar petition was filed by the petitioner, albeit, pertaining to another arbitration agreement and the same was dismissed by an order dated 02.02.2021 (Cement Corporation of India vs. Promac Engineering Industries Ltd. & Anr.: OMP(I)(COMM) No.362/2020). He further submits that the petitioner had appealed against the said decision before the Division Bench of this Court, being FAO(OS)(COMM) No.92/2021 captioned Cement Corporation of India vs. Promac Engineering Industries Ltd., and the same was also dismissed.

5. The petitioner's contention that the relief sought falls within the residual clause of Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the A&C Act, was rejected.

6. In terms of Section 5 of the A&C Act, recourse to courts in arbitration is limited to the extent as provided under the A&C Act. Section 9 of the A&C Act empowers the Court to issue orders regarding interim measures of protection. Clearly, a challenge to the procedural order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal regarding arbitral fees does not fall within the ambit of Section 9 of the A&C Act.

7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved and nothing stated in this order shall be construed as foreclosing the rights and contentions of the parties with regard to the question relating to the arbitral fees.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top