1. Whether an appeal is maintainable against an order passed under S.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') as an interim measure? If appeal is maintainable, what is the court fee payable? These are the two questions considered in this order.

2. The appellant, a finance company, in this case filed an application before the District Court as O.P. (Arb.) No. 22 of 2003 under S.9(2) of the Act to have the hired vehicle (under hire purchase agreement) seized through a Commission appointed pending arbitration proceedings. It is not disputed that arbitration proceedings are in progress involving the above hired vehicle.

3. S.9 of the 1996 Act is as follows:

"9. Interim measures by Court:- A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with S.36, apply to a Court -

(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or a person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or

(ii) for an interim measure of protection in repsect of any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;

(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;

(c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;

(d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;

(e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient; and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of; and in relation to, any proceedings before it".

The learned District Judge dismissed the application. When the appeal was filed before this Court, Registry raised the above objections regarding maintainability of the appeal and regarding the court fee payable.

4. S.37(1) of the new Act provides as follows:

"37. Appealable orders:- (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decree of the Court passing the order, namely:-

(a) granting or refusing to grant any measure under S.9;

(b) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under S.34. (2) An appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral Tribunal -

(a) Accepting the plea referred to in sub-s. (2) of sub-s. (3) of S.16; or

(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under S.16."

S.37(1)(a) specifically provides for an appeal against granting or refusing to grant any measure under S.9. Therefore, answer to the first question is simple. The impugned order in this appeal is an appealable order and appeal is maintainable.

5. S.21 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court Fees Act') reads as follows:?

"21. Fee how reckoned:- The fee payable under this Act shall be determined or computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, Chapter VI, Chapter IX and Schedules I and II."

6. S.52 of the Court Fees Act also provides that fee payable in the appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal. It is now well settled that court fee is determined on the basis of the relief sought as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Scaria Joseph v. Mathai George, (1974 KLT 721 FB) and Sebastian v. State of Kerala, 1977 KLT 196. It is not disputed that if a specific court fee is mentioned in Schedule I or II as provided in S.21, the cour