Arbitral Tribunal Erred In Fixing Fees Separately For Claims And Counter-Claims, Contrary To The Agreement Between Parties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Apex Court’s decision in Oil and Natural Gas (ONGC) vs Afcons Gunanusa JV (2022), where it had interpreted the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), clearly requires party autonomy to be given paramount importance. The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that though in ONGC (2022), it was held that the term “sum in dispute” in the Fourth Schedule shall be considered separately for the claim and counter-claim, the Arbitral Tribunal was in error in fixing the arbitral fees separately for the claims and counter-claims, contrary to the express Agreement between the parties. While dealing with a petition filed under Section 14 of the A&C Act by NHAI, the Court noted that the parties had agreed not to apply the Schedule IV in totality, but to apply the fee structure envisaged in a 2020 Circular issued by NHAI, which incorporated some- but not all- vital elements of Schedule IV. Observing that the parties took a conscious decision regarding consolidated fee for claims and counter-claims, the Court said that the Arbitral Tribunal was in error in holding that the fee structure projected by NHAI was not acceptable to it. The bench thus concluded that the renumeration of the Tribunal must be computed on the basis of the total sum in dispute, inclusive of the claims and counter-claims, as provided in the 2020 Circular issued by NHAI. The dispute between the petitioner, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and the respondent, M/s AE Tollway Ltd, under an Agreement was referred to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal passed a preliminary order, refusing to fix the arbitral fees as per the fee structure provided under the Agreement. The Tribunal held that the amount of fees payable to the Arbitrator would be as per the Fourth Schedule of the A&C Act. NHAI made an application for recall of the said order, contending that the Tribunal was bound to follow the fee schedule set out in the Agreement. It pleaded that in view of the Agreement between them, the parties are bound by a 2020 Circular issued by NHAI, as per which the Tribunal was required to charge consolidated fees for claims and counter-claims. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas (ONGC) vs Afcons Gunanusa JV (2022), which was pronounced in the interregnum period, the Tribunal passed an order, holding that the arbitral fees was liable to be charged separately for the claims and counter-claims, in terms of ONGC (2022). Consequently, NHAI filed a petition under Section 14 of the A&C Act before the Delhi High Court, seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had fixed its fees contrary to the Agreement between the parties. NHAI argued before the Court that the interpretation of the 4th Schedule to the A&C Act, as made by the Apex Court in ONGC (2022), would apply only if there is no agreement between the parties to the contrary. It added that the intention of NHAI was not to apply the 4th Schedule in totality, and the fee schedule provided in the said Schedule was incorporated subject to the claim and counter-claim being combined for the purpose of determination of fees. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court in ONGC (2022) had ruled that, in cases of ad hoc arbitrations, where the 4th Schedule has been made applicable for calculation of arbitrators’ fee, the term “sum in dispute” in the said Schedule shall be considered separately for the claim amount for the claim and counter-claim. Consequently, the arbitrators’ fee will be calculated separately for the claim and counter-claim, the Supreme Court had held. The High Court, however, after referring to the 2020 Circular issued by NHAI, ruled that, in view of the said Circular, the fees of the Tribunal need not be computed separately for the claims and counterclaims. Noting that the Agreement between the parties was not to apply Schedule IV in totality, but to apply the 2020 Circular, which incorporates some- but not all- vital elements of Schedule IV, the Court remarked, “As stated in paragraph 173 of ONGC, the interpretation therein would be applicable to arbitrations to which Schedule IV applies. However, that does not extend to a case such as the present one in view of the principles of party autonomy, acknowledged in ONGC itself.” “ONGC makes it clear that the determination of arbitral fees is contractual in nature, and requires a tripartite consensus between both parties and the arbitrator(s),” the Court said. Since the Apex Court in ONGC (2022) clearly requires party autonomy to be given paramount importance, the Tribunal was in error in holding, in its first procedural order rendered before the judgment in ONGC, that the fee structure projected by NHAI was not acceptable to it, the bench said. Referring to the 2020 Circular...

Arbitral Tribunal Erred In Fixing Fees Separately For Claims And Counter-Claims, Contrary To The Agreement Between Parties: Delhi High Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

Arbitral Tribunal Erred In Fixing Fees Separately For Claims And Counter-Claims, Contrary To The Agreement Between Parties: Delhi High Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers