Arbitral fee computation under the Fourth Schedule includes claim and counterclaim cumulatively, with composite tribunal fees.

Section 11(14) and the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 govern arbitral tribunal fees even where the tribunal is constituted by party agreement, and the fee regime cannot be fixed under Sections 31-A and 38. The "sum in dispute" for fee computation includes claim and counterclaim cumulatively, because the scheduled fee must reflect the full monetary stake in the arbitration. The schedule contemplates a composite fee for the tribunal as a whole, not separate fees for each arbitrator on the same amount. The fee orders were set aside and fee and administrative expenses were directed to be recalculated accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 11(14) and the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply to an arbitral tribunal constituted by the parties themselves under their contract. (ii) Whether the sum in dispute for fee determination includes claim and counterclaim cumulatively and whether the fee under the Fourth Schedule is a composite fee for the tribunal or a separate fee for each arbitrator.

Issue (i): Whether Section 11(14) and the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply to an arbitral tribunal constituted by the parties themselves under their contract.

Analysis: The fee-determination provision in Section 11(14) is part of the scheme governing constitution of the arbitral tribunal and is meant to regulate arbitrator fees by reference to the Fourth Schedule. The absence of High Court rules does not exclude the application of the Schedule. The provision is to be read purposively in light of the legislative intent to curb excessive arbitral costs and make arbitration cost-effective. The court rejected the approach that the fee regime under Sections 31-A and 38, which concern costs and deposits, could govern the fixation of arbitral fee under Section 11(14).

Conclusion: Section 11(14) and the Fourth Schedule apply to tribunals appointed by the parties as well, and the tribunal's reliance on Sections 31-A and 38 for fee fixation was and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the sum in dispute for fee determination includes claim and counterclaim cumulatively and whether the fee under the Fourth Schedule is a composite fee for the tribunal or a separate fee for each arbitrator.

Analysis: The expression "sum in dispute" was construed to include both claim and counterclaim together, since fee under the Fourth Schedule must reflect the entire monetary stake in the arbitration. The ceiling prescribed by the Schedule would be defeated if claim and counterclaim were treated separately. The language of Section 11(14) refers to determination of fees of the arbitral tribunal, which supports a composite fee for the tribunal as a whole. Had separate fees for each member been intended, the Schedule would have said so expressly.

Conclusion: The sum in dispute is to be computed cumulatively by adding claim and counterclaim, and the fee under the Fourth Schedule is composite for the tribunal and not separately payable to each arbitrator on the same schedule amount.

Final Conclusion: The fee orders of the arbitral tribunal were set aside, and the tribunal was directed to fix fee and administrative expenses afresh in accordance with the court's interpretation of the statutory fee regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 11(14) and the Fourth Schedule regulate arbitral tribunal fees even where the tribunal is constituted by party agreement, and "sum in dispute" for fee computation includes claim and counterclaim cumulatively, with the scheduled fee being a composite tribunal fee.

---