Collaborate, Don't Confront: In ADR, success lies in collaboration, not confrontation. Embrace open communication, actively listen, and work together towards a solution that benefits all parties involved.
The genesis of the case lies in a dispute between involved parties, prompting the court to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The fees of the arbitrator were to be determined through a mutual agreement, ensuring an equitable process. However, both parties encountered challenges in timely disbursing the arbitrator's fees, leading to the arbitrator invoking the power of lien on the award as stipulated in Section 39(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the applicant, amidst an insolvency status, sought to dispute the fees, deeming them excessive and burdensome.
The applicant contended that the fees levied by the arbitrator were exorbitant and exceeded the permissible limits outlined in Schedule IV of the Act. Given their insolvency situation, the applicant argued against being burdened with such a substantial financial commitment. Conversely, the arbitrator defended the agreed-upon fees, citing the mutual agreement and highlighting the applicant's prior lack of objection.
The Madras High Court embarked on a comprehensive legal analysis, referencing the stance of the Supreme Court regarding the fee schedule outlined in Schedule IV. The court emphasized that this schedule was not binding, allowing parties to arrive at an alternative fee structure in agreement with the arbitrator. It further stressed that the applicant had initially accepted the fees without contest, thus disallowing their subsequent attempt to challenge the fees under Section 39(2) of the Act.
The court also underscored that the arbitrator had diligently provided statements of account detailing the arbitration proceedings and outstanding fees. Moreover, it upheld the principle that an arbitrator's fees should consider factors such as the complexity of disputes, the specialized knowledge required, and the arbitrator's experience, especially in cases where a former Supreme Court judge serves as the arbitrator.
The Madras High Court firmly underlined the criticality of compensating arbitrators appropriately, equating their fees with those of a liquidator. It emphasized that failing to honor these fees could deter competent arbitrators from handling cases involving financially distressed companies, potentially undermining the very purpose of arbitration.
The court went on to clarify that insolvency proceedings should not serve as grounds for withholding rightful fees from the arbitral tribunal. It emphasized the essential services provided by arbitrators and insisted that the payment of arbitrator fees must be treated as a priority, akin to liquidator fees, thus advocating for a balanced approach in insolvency proceedings.
To appreciate the Madras High Court's decision, it's essential to understand the roles of both arbitrators and liquidators in the legal landscape.
An arbitrator is an independent adjudicator selected by the parties involved in a dispute to resolve their differences impartially. Their role is crucial in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration, aiming to provide a fair and swift resolution outside the traditional courtroom setting.
On the other hand, a liquidator plays a pivotal role in insolvency proceedings. Appointed by the court or creditors, their primary duty is to manage the assets of a company facing insolvency. This includes realizing the company's assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors, aligning with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The recent pronouncement by the Madras High Court has set an influential precedent, elevating the status of arbitrator fees to align them with liquidator fees and emphasizing their priority within the payment hierarchy. This landmark decision seeks to bolster the arbitration process and encourage competent arbitrators to actively participate in resolving disputes, even when they involve financially distressed entities. A fair and just compensation structure for arbitrators is pivotal to maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the arbitration framework. The court's stance signifies a progressive step in ensuring a conducive environment for arbitration within the Indian legal landscape.
This ruling by Madras High Court regarding arbitrator fees reflects a balanced and forward-thinking approach. By aligning these fees with those of liquidators and prioritizing their payment, the court has enhanced the stature of arbitrators and reinforced the importance of their role in the legal system. This decision will likely encourage more competent arbitrators to engage in dispute resolution processes, bolstering the arbitration framework and ultimately benefiting all stakeholders involved. A well-structured compensation mechanism for arbitrators is pivotal to sustaining a fair and effective arbitration process, and the Madras High Court's ruling is a significant stride in that direction.
Case Title: EDAC Engineering v. Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd, Application Nos 2080 and 4609 of 2021
