Samsung India Electronics Private Limited v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Anr.

1. The petition is for setting aside the order dated 16.02.2026, passed by the Co-ordinator, Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), whereby, the claim and counter claim under arbitration proceedings between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 have been directed to be separately assessed for the purpose of computation of arbitrators’ fees. The petitioner assails the KUMAR KAURAV impugned order on the ground that the same is contrary to the Schedule of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Costs & Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018 (Fees Rules) and in contravention of the principles laid by this Court in the case of Jivanlal Joitaram Patel v. National Highways Authority of India.[1]

2. Rule 3 of the Fees Rules, which governs the computation of arbitrators’ fees, is extracted below, for reference: “3. Arbitrator's Fee

(i) The fees payable to the Arbitrators shall be determined in accordance with the scales specified in Schedules 'B, C, D, E & F' to these rules.

(ii) The fee shall be determined and assessed on the aggregate amount of the Claim(s) and Counter Claim(s): Provided that in the event of failure of party to arbitration to pay its share as determined by the Centre, on the aggregation of Claim(s) and Counter Claim(s), the Centre may assess the Claim(s) and Counter Claim(s) separately and demand the same from the parties concerned: Provided further that for the purposes of valuation or quantification of the Claims, the Centre shall be governed by the laws of India, and the principles governing the valuation of claims before the Courts of Civil Jurisdiction: Provided also that in case of undervaluation or where the value is not determinable in pecuniary terms, the Coordinator would be entitled to assess and demand the revised fee on the basis of assessment and to decide the objections, if any, relating to the quantification or valuation.” (Emphasis supplied)

3. The Court has considered the submissions made by learned senior counsel, and finds that Rule 3 (i) of the Fees Rules provides that the fees payable to the Arbitrators shall be determined in accordance with the scales specified in Schedules ‘B, C, D, E and F’. Rule 3(ii) of the Fees Rules FAO (OS) (COMM) 70/2017 provides that the fee shall be determined and assessed on the aggregate amount of the claim and the counter claim.

4. To this extent, Ms. Trehan is right in her contention that generally the fees of the arbitrator must be determined and assessed on the aggregate amount of the claim and counter claim.

5. The aforesaid Rule however, would not be applicable in the present case. Instead, the proviso to Sub-Rule (ii), which provides that in the event of failure of any of the parties to pay its share of the fees as determined by the DIAC on the aggregate amount, would apply.

6. If the impugned order is considered in the context of the proviso to Rule 3(ii) of the Fees Rules, it would indicate that in the instant case, one of the parties, i.e., respondent no.2 herein, refused to pay fees with respect to the main claim. Paragraph no.6 of the impugned order is extracted below, for reference:

7. The consequences of non-payment of fees payable on the claim by respondent no. 2 will have to be considered appropriately during the course of the arbitration proceedings or in the final award by the learned arbitrator.

8. In view thereof, the Court finds that the Co-ordinator, DIAC has rightly exercised his authority under the Fees Rules to assess the claim and the counter claim separately.

9. The reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision in Jivanlal Joitaram Patel is misplaced. Paragraph no.14 of the decision, which is extracted below would clearly indicate that the proviso to Rule 3 of the Fees Rules kicks in when the party fails to pay its shares of the aggregate amount of claim and counter claim.