In essence, in the case of Gayatri Roadways, the Delhi Supreme Court held that the court was free to set its own costs, but could only do so in cases of ad hoc arbitration on the national territory. A year later, in the Gammon Engineers case, the Delhi Supreme Court ruled that the court would be bound by the parties` agreement on court fees. 4. Arbitration fees and advances to cover additional arbitration costs are paid in Russian ruble. Subject to the agreement with the arbitration centre, an arbitration fee and advances may be paid to cover additional arbitration costs in US dollars or euros, except as otherwise stipulated by the Russian Foreign Exchange legislation, while the Russian ruble will be converted into foreign currency, in accordance with the official exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. , from the date a bank is ordered to pay. Consider a situation in which the arbitrator “X” empaneled with an institution and also accepts appointments by the courts (or designated arbitration institutions) in ad hoc national arbitrations. Under the current arbitration, depending on whether the parties have agreed to settle their disputes through institutional mediation, arbitrator “X” will be paid higher fees (if appointed by an institution such as the MCIA) or lower costs (if designated in accordance with Section 11 in an ad hoc arbitration) to rule on the same dispute. Similarly, the parties may have set the fees of the arbitral tribunal in the arbitration agreement. Given that the judiciary has strictly protected the autonomy of the party, can such an agreement between the parties be ignored when section 11 appointments are made? These and other concerns have already been raised in our previous blog on arbitration fees.

In 2018, the Delhi High Court in the case of the National Highways Authority of India v. Gammon Engineers and Contractor Pvt. Ltd.3 (Gammon Engineers Case) reinterpreted subsection 31 (8) of the amended act, finding this time that the “fees” of Subsection 31 (8) and Section 31A of the Act are the costs borne by an arbitration tribunal in its arbitration decision in favour of one party and against the other award of the Act. and against the other. The removal of the terms “unless the contrary agreement agreed by the parties” was seen only as a sign that the parties did not agree by agreement to pay the “fees” and “denude” the arbitral tribunal of its power to award the “costs” of the arbitration procedure to the benefit of the winning party. With respect to the setting of fees by the Court of Arbitration, the Court held that an arbitral tribunal is bound by the arbitration agreement between the parties, which is the source of its power. Similar results were obtained by Bombay High Court in Transocean Drilling Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.4. Many courts have considered whether the awarding of arbitration costs to staff is grounds for invalidating the arbitration agreement or for requiring a change in the award of costs. For example, the courts have expressed their willingness to invalidate the provisions of arbitration under federal law if the costs awarded to workers prevent the effective confirmation of their federal legal rights.