https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305187 The Court held that Subsection (14) of Section 11 and the Fourth Schedule apply to arbitral tribunals appointed by parties, not just those appointed by the High Court or Supreme Court. It interpreted "Sum in Dispute" cumulatively, including both claim and counterclaim, to rationalize arbitration costs. The Court agreed that fees should be a composite amount for the entire tribunal, not paid individually to each arbitrator. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Arbitral Tribunal was directed to determine fees and expenses afresh in line with the Court's observations. The writ petition was allowed. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:01:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305187 The Court held that Subsection (14) of Section 11 and the Fourth Schedule apply to arbitral tribunals appointed by parties, not just those appointed by the High Court or Supreme Court. It interpreted "Sum in Dispute" cumulatively, including both claim and counterclaim, to rationalize arbitration costs. The Court agreed that fees should be a composite amount for the entire tribunal, not paid individually to each arbitrator. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Arbitral Tribunal was directed to determine fees and expenses afresh in line with the Court's observations. The writ petition was allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305187