JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J. (Oral):- In the instant petition, two issues have been raised. One with regard to the discrepancy evidenced from the Fourth Schedule, in particular, prescribing the model fee for disputes involving more than Rs.10 crores and upto Rs. 20 crores. The Schedule as it exists, provide as follows:- Sum in dispute Model  fee Above Rs.10,00,00,000/- and upto Rs. 20,00,00,000/- Rs.12,37,500/- plus 0.75 per cent of the claim amount over and above Rs.1,00,00,000/- 2. Reply has been filed by the Union of India and it has been stated by Sh. Chetan Mittal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that there is indeed an infirmity in the afore-extracted clause rectification of which has already been set in motion by introducing the necessary amendment and is at an advance stage of consideration and consequent legislation. He has assured the Court that needful will be done shortly. 3. This would take care of the first issue raised in the petition and in view of assurance and the reply submitted, we put this issue to rest. 4. The second issue is against the interpretation placed by the Arbitral Tribunal about fee admissible to them. According to the Arbitral Tribunal, the model fee prescribed shall be admissible to all the members of the Tribunal whereas petitioner states that Arbitral Tribunal would be entitled to composite fee in terms of the Schedule and members of the Tribunal cannot be treated as separate for the applicability of the Schedule. 5. The note appended to the Schedule needs to be extracted:- “Note:- In the event, the Arbitral Tribunal is a Sole Arbitrator, he shall be entitled to an additional amount of twenty five per cent on the fee payable as per the table set out above.” 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such an interpretation is not envisaged in the Act and thus illegal being contrary to the provisions of Schedule under the Act. 7. The Union of India supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such an interpretation is not envisaged in the Act and thus illegal being contrary to the provisions of Schedule under the Act. 7. The Union of India supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties on this issue,we are of the opinion that Tribunal has gone wrong in interpreting the note in the manner reflected in the award which we may extract here below:- “With regard to submissions of the respondent No.1 as to whether the fee is payable to each Arbitrator or all the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal as per the detailed calculations already given in the 13th hearing, it is clarified that each Member of the Arbitral Tribunal is entitled to receive the amount already intimated to the parties. The Note below the Fourth Schedule clearly states that if the Arbitral Tribunal comprises of a Sole Arbitrator, he shall be entitled to an additional amount of 25% on the fee payable as per the Fourth Schedule. This leads to the obvious interpretation that the fee set out in the Fourth Schedule is for each individual Member of the Arbitral Tribunal.” 9. Evidently the intent of the aforesaid is that in the eventuality of a sole Arbitrator being asked to enter upon an arbitration he would be entitled to an additional amount of 25% of the fee table, as per the table set out above (i.e Fourth Schedule). It cannot thus be interpreted that since sole arbitrator is entitled to 25% additional amount over and above the Schedule it should be construed to mean that other members of the Tribunal would be entitled to the model fee as per the Fourth Schedule with the principal Arbitrator getting 25% additional fee thereto. It means only that in the eventuality of Arbitral Tribunal consisting of a solitary member it could entitle him to additional fee of 25% of the model fee but if it is a multi member body then they would be entitled to a composite fee as set out in the Schedule. 10. Order (Annexure P-2) is modified to this extent. 11. Writ petition disposed of in above terms.