Petition Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act Is Not Maintainable Against The Order By Arbitral Tribunal On Arbitration Fees: Delhi High Court

The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, held that the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the arbitration fees does not fall within the ambit of Section 9 of the A&C Act, and rejected the contention that the petition was maintainable under the residuary clause of Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the A&C Act.

The appellant Cement Corporation of India filed a petition before the Single Bench of Delhi High Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act against the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the fees payable by the parties. The Single Bench ruled that the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal were procedural orders fixing the fees payable by the parties and a challenge under Section 9 of the A&C Act was not maintainable. The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Single Bench before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

Section 9(1)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that a party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before its enforcement, apply to a Court for an interim measure of protection in respect to the specified matters, including for preservation of goods and property. Section 9(1)(ii)(e) provides that parties may apply to the Court for such other interim measures of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient, other than with respect to the specified matters.

The Court ruled that Section 9 of the A&C Act empowers the Court to grant reliefs which are in the nature of interim measures, and challenge to the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal regarding arbitration fees does not fall within the ambit of Section 9 of the A&C Act.

The Court rejected the contention made by the appellant Cement Corporation of India that the petition challenging the interim procedural orders of the Arbitral Tribunal was maintainable under the residuary clause of Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the A&C Act.

The Court thus held that a petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act is not maintainable before the Court against the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Court thus dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

Case Title: Cement Corporation of India versus Promac Engineering Industries Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 329

Dated: 29.03.2022 (Delhi High Court)

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Shankar K. Jha with Mr. Manu Monga

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sanya Kumar and Ms. Rakshandu Deka

Click Here To Read/Download Order