1. The issue involved in these cases is mainly in respect of the actual court fee payable for challenging the orders passed by the concerned District Court either under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ('New Act' in short) or the Awards passed under Section 34 of the Act in an appeal preferred under Section 37 (1) (a) (in respect of interim order) and those coming within the purview of Section 37 (1) (b) in respect of the final awards.

2. The matter necessitated elaborated consideration in view of the amendment of the Statute (Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act) as per the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, stipulating payment of court fee as provided under Article 4 (i) or (4) (ii) of the Second Schedule. On an earlier occasion, when objection was noted by the Registry as to the adequacy of court fee, a detailed order was passed by this Court as reported in 2015 (5) KHC 929 [Syndicate Bank Vs. Nishad Mathew and Ors.] insisting to pay 'ad valorem' court fee in terms of Article 4 (ii) of the Second Schedule. In some subsequent cases, this Court permitted numbering of the appeals (arising from interim orders in terms of Section 9, r/w Section 37(1) (a) of the Act) observing that the objection raised by the Registry will be considered in the due course. Since the issue requires more clarity, these matters have been heard in detail.

3. Mr. K. Jayakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in the unnumbered arbitration appeal (ZARBA No. 88 of 2016) led the arguments on behalf of the appellants situated on similar pedestal and was supported by other learned counsel, to the extent they are involved. Argument on behalf of the respondent State was made by Mr. K.A. Jaleel, the learned Additional Advocate General.

4. To understand the basic issue involved, a scrutiny of the scope and object of the Arbitration Act 1940 ('Old Act' in short), which governed the field of Arbitration earlier, and the substantial change brought about as per the Arbitration and the Conciliation Act 1996 ('New Act' in short) will be worthwhile to be noted. Though there is substantial change in different aspects between the two Acts, we confine the scrutiny only with reference to those provisions which are more connected with the payment of court fees. Similarly, though there were amendments to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act at different points of time, we are confining the discussion with reference to the position as prevailed prior to the amendment brought about w.e.f 01.04.2013 and the position now available after 01.04.2013. Under the 'Old Act', the right of appeal conferred upon the party by virtue of Section 39, is reproduced below:-

“39. Appealabe orders - (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order:-

An order:-

(i) supereseding an arbitration;

(ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;

(iii) modifying or correcting an award;

(iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;

(v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;

(vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award:

Provided that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to any order passed by a Small Cause Court.

(2) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall effect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

5. The scope of appeal was not seemingly in connection with passing of interim orders granting or refusing to grant attachment, injunction etc, but from the final verdicts, except the specific instances mentioned therein. Under the 'New Act', by virtue of Section 9, a party is set at liberty to apply to a Court to get an interim order in respect of a situation envisaged under Section 9 (i) or for getting an interim orders in respect of specific mat