ORDER.- The question raised relates to the correct Court-fee payable on a petition under section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act when the award is sought to be filed by the arbitrator. In a dispute between the Pudukkottai State Electricity Undertaking represented by its Accredited Representative, the South Madras Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., Tiruchirappalli, and the Madras State Electricity Board wherein Sri S.P. Sriram had been appointed arbitrator, the arbitrator sought to file his award with a petition under section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act. He affixed on the petition a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 5 and when the office returned the petition pointing out inter alia that a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 20 has to be affixed, the Advocate of the petitioner re-presented the petition stating that as per item 9 of Appendix II of the High Court Fees Rules, no additional Court-fee is payable. The matter was then placed before the Master who directed it to be placed before this Court as the question is likely to come up frequently and an authoritative decision is required on the point. According to the office objection, when an award is filed without direction of the Court under section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, the residuary Article 11 (l) of Schedule II of the Madras Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act (XIV of 1955) and not Article 11 (n) of the said Act applies and this view is supported by the ruling in Ramaswamy Naidu v. Salammal1. The learned Government Pleader, who was given notice of this reference, is also of opinion that the aforesaid residuary Article applies to the facts of the present case. He has pointed out that item 9 of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956 which prescribes a fee of Rs. 5 (Rupees five) “on filing a certificate or report of a Commissioner or award of an arbitrator” cannot apply when under rule 16 of Order 43 of the Original Side Rules, 1956 the Court-fees payable in respect of proceedings under the Arbitration Act are those set out in the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1955. Under this Act, the relative Articles with which we are concerned arc as already indicated, Articles 11 (n) and 11 (l). The former Article relates to applications under sections 14 and 20 of the Arbitration Act for direction for filing an award etc. Under this Act, the relative Articles with which we are concerned arc as already indicated, Articles 11 (n) and 11 (l). The former Article relates to applications under sections 14 and 20 of the Arbitration Act for direction for filing an award etc. This article does not apply, as the application now is by the arbitrator to file or to receive the award and issue notice to the respondents. Article 11 (l) applies to Original petitions not otherwise provided for. When such a petition is filed in the High Court, the Court-fee provided is Rs. 20 (Rupees twenty) and there is no other Article for a petition by the arbitrator to receive the award and issue notice. If, therefore, Article 11 (n) does not apply, the only other Article applicable is Article 11 (l). This view gains support from the ruling in Ramaswami Naidu v. Salammal1, referred to above. That was a case from Salem. There the arbitrator had filed the petition in the Sub-Court under section 14 (2) of the Act for filing the award and Court-fee had been paid under Article 11 (l) of the Court-fees Act. The Subordinate Judge held that the Court-fee payable was under Article 11 (n) and not under Article 11 (l). When the matter came up in revision to this Court, Ramachandra Ayyar, J., as he then was, held that Article 11 (l) applied to an application by the arbitrator for filing an award. He pointed out that there is a well-marked distinction between a case where the arbitrator himself applies to have the award filed and a case where he omits to do so and the party prays to the Court for giving direction to an arbitrator to file the award. The word " directed " in section 14 (2), according to the learned Judge, does not apply to a case where the arbitrator himself applies to the Court as no direction of the Court would be necessary to file the award which he can do at any time. What is contended for the petitioner is that, since item 9 of the High Court-fees Rules remains unamended after the incorporation of Order 43 in 1956, he is entitled in this case to invoke the High Court Fees Rules and pay the lesser Court-fee. The Arbitration Act was enacted in 1940. What is contended for the petitioner is that, since item 9 of the High Court-fees Rules remains unamended after the incorporation of Order 43 in 1956, he is entitled in this case to invoke the High Court Fees Rules and pay the lesser Court-fee. The Arbitration Act was enacted in 1940. In 1941, the Original Side Rules of 1927 were amended by substituting in Order 38 the proceedings under Arbitration Act (X of 1940) in the place of proceedings under Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. Rule 16 therein provided: " Fees in respect of proceedings under this Act shall be according to the table of fees in force for the time being on the Original Side of the Court as nearly as circumstances will permit. In the Original Side Rules of 1956, old Order 38 was substituted by Order 43 and rule 16 therein prescribes that the Court-fees in respect of proceedings under the Act shall be those set out in the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (Madras Act XIV of 1955) and the Practitioners’ fee shall be those set out in the Madras High Court Fees Rules. It would thus appear that the fee now payable for a petition by the arbitrator is the fee prescribed under Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1955 and that when no specific article is provided therein for an application by the arbitrator to file the award ; such an application obviously come under the residuary Article 11 (l). I am not, therefore, inclined to accept the petitioner’s contention that he is still entitled to pay the lesser fee under item 9 of the High Court Fees Rules. Any rule made by the High. Court, as observed by the Supreme Court, in R. M. Seshadri v. The Province of Madras2, will not have the legal authority if the appropriate Legislature makes law on the same subject and such a law has been made by the Legislature by the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1955. There is no doubt incongruity between rule 16 of Order 43 and item 9 of the High Court Fees Rules ; but this is a matter for amendment of the latter rule and cannot supersede the former. The office tried to reconcile the conflict between rule 16 and item 9 of the High Court Fees Rules by suggesting that the petitioner has to pay Court-fee under both the provisions. The office tried to reconcile the conflict between rule 16 and item 9 of the High Court Fees Rules by suggesting that the petitioner has to pay Court-fee under both the provisions. This suggestion is not tenable as two fees are not contemplated for a petition under section 14 (2). For the petitioner, my attention was however drawn to sub-section (2) of section 2 of Act XIV of 1955. The said sub-section is to the effect that where any law contains provisions relating to the levy of fee in respect of proceedings under such other law, the ‘provisions of this Act relating to levy of fee in respect of such proceedings shall apply subject to such provisions of such other law. When this sub-section is read along with Order 43, rule 16, it would be found that the fee leviable is really under the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. I am, therefore, of opinion that the petition has to be stamped with an additional Court-fee stamp of Rs. 15 (Rupees fifteen). The petitioner will affix the correct stamp within two weeks from this date. V.K. ---------- Order accordingly.