In fact, the agreement provides for a fixed rate of fee of the AT as agreed by the parties.
The Tribunal then passed the following order 3.8 The respondent had filed an application for review of fees fixed by the AT and to modify the same in terms of the NHAI circular dated 01.06.2017.
The respondent, against this order, moved an application dated 13.10.2017 before the Tribunal in which it sought to remind the Tribunal that the arbitral fees has been fixed by the agreement and that, therefore, they may be fixed in terms of the policy of 2017 and number as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
which, the learned Single Judge had held that Section 31 8 and Section 31A of the Arbitration Act would govern matters such as this and since the expression unless otherwise agreed by the parties had been omitted from Section 31A by the Amendment Act of 2015, arbitrators fees would have to be fixed in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act dehors the agreement between the parties.
5383 of 2019 etc.
5383 of 2019 etc.
Oral submissions on this mater were made by both Civil Appeal No.
the parties.
Meanwhile, the Arbitral Tribunal passed yet another order dated 19.07.2018 in which the Tribunal stated it had numberobjection to payment of any fees as would be decided in the pending proceedings by the High Court of Delhi.
The matter came up before the Tribunal yet again on 30.01.2018.
The brief facts of the present appeal are as follows Signature Not Verified A companytract dated 07.02.2006 was entered into between Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2019.07.25 104431 IST Reason the appellant and the respondent.
The Tribunal companysidered the matter and decided that the fees of the AT shall be regulated as per provisions of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015.
F. NARIMAN, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The AT deliberated on the matter and has decided that in view of the latest provision in the amended Act, the AT is companypetent to fix the fees regardless of the agreement of the parties.
I am informed that the said decision is pending challenge before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
5384 OF 2019 Arising out of SLP C No.
Faced with this order, the respondent moved an application on 08.05.2018 under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to terminate the mandate of the arbitrators, inasmuch as, according to the respondent, the arbitrators had wilfully disregarded the agreement between the parties and were, therefore, de jure unable to act any further in the proceedings.
22099 of 2018 Leave granted.
It was brought out that the Claimant had inadvertently informed the AT as per para 1.12.1 a that there was numberagreement between the parties regarding the fees of the AT.
