Judgment :- K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. This appeal has been preferred by the first respondent in IA 1563(a)/01 in Arbitration O.P. 86 of 2001 of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam. Disputes arose out of a Charterparty agreement dated 29.7.2000. Appellant herein contended for carrying out dredging operations in the West Coast of India, the appellant had entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent for the availment of a dredger, 'Duke of S.A.' on a time charter basis. In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties there was a subsequent understanding between the parties that they would resort to Arbitration proceedings under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Appellant paid an amount of Rs. 10 towards Court-fee under Article 3A(1)(a) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. Registry has raised an objection that the Court fee has to be paid as per Schedule II Article 4 of the Court Fees Act. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal is only against an interim order passed by the District Court under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the subject-matter is a prohibitory order. Hence, Schedule II, Article 4 has no application. Registry however maintained their earlier objection and stated as follows : "This M.F.A. is filed against the order in I.A. in Arbitration O.P. Payment of C.F. in Arbitration cases is enumerated in Schedule II Article 4 of C.F. and Suit Valuation Act. Valuation in Arbitration O.P. to be mentioned for the purpose of calculation of C.F. in M.F.A." In view of the objection raised by the registry request was made by the counsel to post the matter before the Court. When the matter came up for hearing we heard counsel for the appellant Sri. Jayasankar and counsel appearing for the State Sri P. M. Poulose. Section 37(1)(a) enables a party to file appeal against an order passed by the Court below either granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9. Counsel for the appellant submitted this appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Article 4 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is not applicable. According to the counsel the Article which is applicable is Article 3(iii)(A)(1)(a). Consequently only Rs. 10 need be remitted towards Court-fee. Before the Court below first respondent herein paid only Rs. 10. Article 4 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is not applicable. According to the counsel the Article which is applicable is Article 3(iii)(A)(1)(a). Consequently only Rs. 10 need be remitted towards Court-fee. Before the Court below first respondent herein paid only Rs. 10. Therefore placing reliance on Section 52 of the Court Fees Act counsel submitted fee payable in appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the court of first instance on the subject-matter of appeal. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Chacko vs. Catholic Bank of India Ltd. 1963 KLT 1068). In that case the Bench held an appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act 1958 and Section 45N of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 has to bear Court-fee under Article 3(iii)(A)(2)(c) of Schedule II of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (10 of 1960). Learned Government Pleader on the other hand placing reliance on the saving clause of Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 submitted that all rules made and notifications published, under the Arbitration Act, 1940. We are of the view counsel for the appellant is right in his contention since Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.