The Commercial Court has jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to fix arbitration fees, and the fees demanded by the Arbitrator were justified based on the claims made.

JUDGMENT :

K. NATARAJAN, J.

1. This original petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commercial Court-1, Ernakulam, in M.A. (Arb.) No.567 of 2022 dated 29.03.2025, for having rejected the application.

2. Heard the arguments of Sri.V.Philip Mathews, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.V.Ajakumar, Sri.Sidharth A.Menon, counsel for respondents 1 and 2, as well as Sri.M.P.Ramnath, counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner raised the arbitration proceedings before the 3^rd respondent/arbitrator, namely, Hon’ble Justice Mr. B. Kemal Pasha, former Judge of the High Court of Kerala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Arbitrator’), and respondents 1 and 2 appeared and filed a counterclaim in the proceedings. During the proceedings, both petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 came to a settlement, and an interim award came to be passed by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator also passed a final award in the proceedings on 28.07.2021. Subsequently, he has demanded an arbitration fee of Rs.27,59,375/-, after deducting Rs.3,00,000/- each, already paid by both parties, and the balance payable was Rs.21,59,375/-, and 50% of the petitioner’s share of the fee demanded was Rs.10,79,680/-.

4. The petitioner, being the claimant before the Arbitrator, was not satisfied with the award passed by the sole arbitrator, as well as the fee demanded by him, which was exorbitant, and according to him, the fee for the claim was already paid, and the settlement had already arrived, therefore, the question of passing the final award does not arise. Hence, the award passed by the 3^rd respondent/Arbitrator was illegal; he wants to challenge the same before the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

5. Further case of the petitioner is that in order to challenge the arbitration award, he has to pay the fees and costs of the arbitration before the District Court. For which, he has to produce a copy of the award before the District Court, but the Arbitrator did not supply the copy of the Arbitration Award due to non-payment of the Arbitration fees. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition in A.R.No.60 of 2021, before the High Court for fixing the Arbitration fees and costs, and also challenged that the arbitration fees demanded by the Arbitrator as exorbitant. This Court directed the petitioner to approach the District Court for fixing the arbitration fees, and then, the award shall be delivered to the petitioner without demanding any fees more than what is fixed by the District Judge.

6. Subsequently, respondents 1 and 2 filed Review Petition No.490 of 2022 before the High Court, for review of the order, the High Court passed in A.R. No.60 of 2021. Once again, this Court dismissed the Review Petition filed by respondents 1 and 2. Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent/ sole arbitrator filed another Review Petition No.787 of 2022, by reviewing the order of this Court, contending that the petitioner shall deposit the arbitration fees demanded by the Arbitrator, and without depositing, he cannot invoke the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, without payment of the charges demanded by the Arbitrator. Therefore, this Court has modified the order, permitting the petitioner to offer a bank guarantee for the arbitration fees payable by the petitioner vide order dated 17.10.2022. Subsequent to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner filed an application before the District Judge for fixing the arbitration fees by filing an application under Section 39 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the application, the Commercial Court in M.A.(Arb.) No.567 of 2022 dismissed the application on 29.3.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Commercial Court committed an error in dismissing the application, filed b