PRAFUL A. MEHTA Vs. NAINESH M. GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dtd. 21/2/2022, the application filed by the petitioner u/s.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, was granted, as this Court was of the opinion that the disputes that have arisen between the parties, deserve to be referred to the Arbitrator in the wake of the understanding reached between the parties and recorded in the Agreement. Accordingly, the Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Court and the fees payable to the Sole Arbitrator were determined to be in accordance with the Bombay High Court Fees Payable to Arbitrator (Fees) 2018.

(2.) In the wake of the aforesaid order, the Arbitrator made a statement of disclosure, and in it's preliminary meeting, determined the fees payable to him in terms of the order passed by this Court on 21/2/2022. The fees were determined in a preliminary manner on interim basis, based on the quantified amounts in the claim, and it was clearly stipulated that the fees shall be redetermined at a later stage during the course of the arbitration proceedings.

(3.) The total fees of Rs.22,76,343.00 was therefore, determined as preliminary fee and it was directed that it shall be equally shared between the claimant and three respondents, and the payment was directed to be made within one week from receipt thereof. It is this direction to make the payment within the stipulated period by the Arbitrator, which resulted in certain correspondence being entered with him as the claimant expressed that it is not possible to pay the entire arbitration fees before the date fixed by the Arbitrator i.e. 12/5/2022 and therefore, a request was made to deposit the fees stage wise. The said request was turned down by the Arbitrator by extending the period by one week, and by directing that the fees shall be deposited on or before 19/5/2022, and the learned Arbitrator reiterate that it is in terms of direction issued in paragraph no.5, the fees shall be deposited. Worth it to note that the respondent no.1 expressed it's disinclination to pay the fees of the Arbitrator and therefore, the amount to be shared, fell upon the claimant and even no response came from respondent nos.2 and 4.