ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the Commercial Court No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Court below’) whereby application filed by the petitioners under Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’) has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 02.04.2018, appointed Mr. Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma (Retd.) as the sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act of 1996. Subsequently, Mr. Justice Dinesh Chandra Somani (Retd.) was appointed as sole Arbitrator by the Division Bench vide order dated 15.12.2018. The order dated 15.12.2018 was challenged by way of review petition by the petitioners and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 03.01.2019. 3. The claimant-respondent filed claim petition before the sole Arbitrator seeking two sets of claims i.e. (1) for Rs. 1,05,45,760/- and (2) for Rs. 1,77,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. till its realization. 4. The sole Arbitrator vide his order dated 28.04.2019 determined his fees at Rs. 6,48,696/-, as per Section 11(14) read with Schedule-IV of the Act of 1996. The sole Arbitrator also mentioned that the claimant had not quantified the amount of interest till submission of the statement of claim/commencement of the arbitral proceedings and the parties were directed to quantify the amount of interest, as claimed in the statement of claim and the same was to be submitted on the next date of hearing. The sole Arbitrator also mentioned that after quantification of amount of interest, fees of the arbitral Tribunal was to be re-determined accordingly. 5. Thereafter, an application, quantifying the interest, was filed by the claimant and a sum of Rs. 11,17,00,000/- was claimed as interest till the submission of claim petition. The sole Arbitrator rescheduled the fees vide order dated 09.08.2019 and calculated the fees, according to sub-section (14) of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 and Schedule-IV appended thereto, at Rs. 19,21,366/-. The said amount was not paid to the sole Arbitrator and, as such, the sole Arbitrator vide proceedings dated 26.09.2019, 16.10.2019 and 30.10.2019 granted time to the petitioners, on their asking to deposit fees of arbitral Tribunal. 6. 19,21,366/-. The said amount was not paid to the sole Arbitrator and, as such, the sole Arbitrator vide proceedings dated 26.09.2019, 16.10.2019 and 30.10.2019 granted time to the petitioners, on their asking to deposit fees of arbitral Tribunal. 6. The sole Arbitrator when found that fees was not paid, passed the order dated 24.02.2020 directing the Officer-In-Charge to file a detailed affidavit asking certain explanations with regard to steps being taken for payment of arbitral Tribunal’s fees. The order dated 24.02.2020 was put to challenge by filing a review petition on 06.03.2020 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2020. 7. The sole Arbitrator, after dismissing the review petition, continued the arbitral proceedings and reached upto the stage of final arguments and partly heard the matter. The sole Arbitrator on 18.10.2020 passed an order for final arguments and fixed the next date on 07.11.2020. 8. The petitioners, at that stage, filed an application under Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1996 before the learned Court below and after considering the submissions of the petitioners and taking into account the relevant provisions of law, the Court below came to the conclusion that application filed by the petitioners has no merit and the same is an abuse of process of law and accordingly rejected the application. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners Dr. P.C. Jain has made the following submissions:- (A) The Court below has not considered the application filed by the petitioners in the light of the provisions contained in Sections 38 and 39 of the Act of 1996. (B) The Court below has not considered the scope of application filed under Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1996 and the only consideration was about mandate of Arbitrator to be terminated. (C) The law laid down by this Court in the case of Doshion Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. AIR 2019 Raj. 54 has not been considered and distinguished without considering the legal issue involved. (D) The Court below has failed to consider sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act of 1996 as the very procedure adopted by the arbitral Tribunal for insisting the payment of fees, by calling for the affidavit of Officer-In-Charge, was not correct procedure in the eyes of law. (D) The Court below has failed to consider sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act of 1996 as the very procedure adopted by the arbitral Tribunal for insisting the payment of fees, by calling for the affidavit of Officer-In-Charge, was not correct procedure in the eyes of law. (E) The procedure adopted by the sole Arbitrator of recording the statement of the Officer-In-Charge and calling upon his explanation is nothing but exceeding the jurisdiction, not vested in him. (F) The inflated claim, revising the interest component, could not have been considered by the sole Arbitrator and such inflated claim of interest, much more than the principal amount set out in the claim petition, cannot become the subject matter of charging fees, by revising the same, invoking the provisions of sub-section (14) of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 read with Schedule-IV appended thereto. 10. Per contra, Mr. Angad Mirdha, counsel for the respondent has made following submissions:- (A) The Court below has rightly rejected the frivolous application filed by the petitioners for terminating mandate of the sole Arbitrator. (B) In the claim petition, the claimant had asked for two sets of claim along with interest @ 18% p.a. till realization of the amount. The quantification of amount of interest was only an arithmetical exercise, permitted by the sole Arbitrator on 28.04.2019 and fees was to be re-determined by the arbitral Tribunal. (C) The claimant has not exaggerated his claim and the quantification of amount of interest is part of the claim and the sole Arbitrator is within its competence while deciding entitlement of interest to the claimant. (D) The conduct of the petitioners shows that on various dates they had agreed to pay the re-determined fees and on several occasions they asked for time to make payment of the same and later on, when fees was not paid and sole Arbitrator asked for an affidavit to be furnished by the Officer-In-Charge, the petitioners cannot be permitted to take a U-Turn from the stand once taken by them and they are bound by their admission to pay the fees, as re-determined by the sole Arbitrator. (E) The present petition filed by the petitioners or the application filed by the petitioners before the Court below may not be entertained, as the sole Arbitrator continued with the arbitral proceedings after affording ample opportunity to the parties and the matter has come upto the stage of final arguments and as such, the petitioners may not be now permitted to stop the proceedings before the sole Arbitrator. 11. I have heard rival contentions of counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 12. It would be appropriate to quote Sections 11 (14), 13, 14, 15, 31A, 38 and 39 of the Act of 1996 for ready reference:- 11.....(14) The arbitral institution shall determine the fees of the arbitral tribunal and the manner of its payment to the arbitral tribunal subject to the rates specified in the Fourth Schedule. 13. Challenge procedure: (1) Subject to sub-section (4), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator. (2) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (1), a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or after becoming aware of any circumstances referred to in sub-section (3) of section 12, send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal. (3) Unless the arbitrator challenged under sub-section (2) withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge. (4) If a challenge under any procedure agreed upon by the parties or under the procedure under sub-section (2) is not successful, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. (5) Where an arbitral award is made under sub-section (4), the party challenging the arbitrator may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with section 34. (6) Where an arbitral award is set aside on an application made under sub-section (5), the Court may decide as to whether the arbitrator who is challenged is entitled to any fees. 14. Failure or impossibility to act: (1) The mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate and he shall be substituted by another arbitrator, if: (a) he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay. 14. Failure or impossibility to act: (1) The mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate and he shall be substituted by another arbitrator, if: (a) he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay. (b) he withdraws from his office or the parties agree to the termination of his mandate. (2) If a controversy remains concerning any of the grounds referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), a party may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, apply to the Court to decide on the termination of the mandate. (3) If, under this section or sub-section (3) of section 13, an arbitrator withdraws from his office or a party agrees to the termination of the mandate of an arbitrator, it shall not imply acceptance of the validity of any ground referred to in this section or sub-section (3) of section 12. 15. Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator: (1) In addition to the circumstances referred to in section 13 or section 14, the mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate: (a) Where he withdraws from office for any reason. (b) by or pursuant to agreement of the parties. (2) Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. (3) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where an arbitrator is replaced under sub-section (2), any hearings previously held may be repeated at the discretion of the arbitral tribunal. (4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an order or ruling of the arbitral tribunal made prior to the replacement of an arbitrator under this section shall not be invalid solely because there has been a change in the composition of the arbitral tribunal. 31A. Regime for costs: (1) In relation to any arbitration proceeding or a proceeding under any of the provisions of this Act pertaining to the arbitration, the Court or arbitral tribunal, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall have the discretion to determine: (a) whether costs are payable by one party to another. (b) the amount of such costs. (c) when such costs are to be paid. (b) the amount of such costs. (c) when such costs are to be paid. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section “costs” means reasonable costs relating to: (i) the fees and expenses of the arbitrators, Courts and witnesses. (ii) legal fees and expenses. (iii) any administration fees of the institution supervising the arbitration. (iv) any other expenses incurred in connection with the arbitral or Court proceedings and the arbitral award. (2) If the Court or arbitral tribunal decides to make an order as to payment of costs: (a) the general rule is that the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. (b) the Court or arbitral tribunal may make a different order for reasons to be recorded in writing. (3) In determining the costs, the Court or arbitral tribunal shall have regard to all the circumstances, including: (a) the conduct of all the parties. (b) whether a party has succeeded partly in the case. (c) whether the party had made a frivolous counter-claim leading to delay in the disposal of the arbitral proceedings. (d) whether any reasonable offer to settle the dispute is made by a party and refused by the other party. (4) The Court or arbitral tribunal may make any order under this section including the order that a party shall pay: (a) a proportion of another party’s costs. (b) a stated amount in respect of another party’s costs. (c) costs from or until a certain date only. (d) costs incurred before proceedings have begun. (e) costs relating to particular steps taken in the proceedings. (f) costs relating only to a distinct part of the proceedings. (g) interest on costs from or until a certain date. (5) An agreement which has the effect that a party is to pay the whole or part of the costs of the arbitration in any event shall be only valid if such agreement is made after the dispute in question has arisen. 38. (g) interest on costs from or until a certain date. (5) An agreement which has the effect that a party is to pay the whole or part of the costs of the arbitration in any event shall be only valid if such agreement is made after the dispute in question has arisen. 38. Deposits: (1) The arbitral tribunal may fix the amount of the deposit or supplementary deposit, as the case may be, as an advance for the costs referred to in sub-section (8) of section 31, which it expects will be incurred in respect of the claim submitted to it: Provided that where, apart from the claim, a counter-claim has been submitted to the arbitral tribunal, it may fix separate amount of deposit for the claim and counter-claim. (2) The deposit referred to in sub-section (1) shall be payable in equal shares by the parties: Provided that where one party fails to pay his share of the deposit, the other party may pay that share: Provided further that where the other party also does not pay the aforesaid share in respect of the claim or the counter-claim, the arbitral tribunal may suspend or terminate the arbitral proceedings in respect of such claim or counter-claim, as the case may be. (3) Upon termination of the arbitral proceedings, the arbitral tribunal shall render an accounting to the parties of the deposits received and shall return any unexpended balance to the party or parties, as the case may be. 39. Lien on arbitral award and deposits as to costs: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and to any provision to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal shall have a lien on the arbitral award for any unpaid costs of the arbitration. 39. Lien on arbitral award and deposits as to costs: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and to any provision to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal shall have a lien on the arbitral award for any unpaid costs of the arbitration. (2) If in any case an arbitral tribunal refuses to deliver its award except on payment of the costs demanded by it, the Court may, on an application in this behalf, order that the arbitral tribunal shall deliver the arbitral award to the applicant on payment into Court by the applicant of the costs demanded and shall, after such inquiry, if any, as it thinks fit, further order that out of the money so paid into Court there shall be paid to the arbitral tribunal by way of costs such sum as the Court may consider reasonable and that the balance of the money, if any, shall be refunded to the applicant. (3) An application under sub-section (2) may be made by any party unless the fees demanded have been fixed by written agreement between him and the arbitral tribunal, and the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to appear and be heard on any such application. (4) The Court may make such orders as it thinks fit respecting the costs of the arbitration where any question arises respecting such costs and the arbitral award contains no sufficient provision concerning them. 13. The key issue to be determined, in the present case, is whether the sole Arbitrator has committed any illegality in permitting quantification of amount of interest, which was not calculated at the time of filing claim petition, though the same was claimed with interest @ 18% p.a. till realization of amount. The ancillary issue is also with regard to the fees of the arbitral Tribunal, adding the component of interest after quantification and whether the sole Arbitrator is within its competence to ask for re( determined fees, as per sub-section (14) of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 and Schedule-IV appended thereto. 14. This Court finds that the claimant, in the present case, while filing the statement of claim had specifically prayed to set aside the order dated 06.06.2007 for encashment of his Bank Guarantee and return/refund of the amount deducted i.e. Rs. 1,05,45,760/- and Rs. 1.77 Crores (approx.) along with interest @ 18% p.a. till its realization. 15. 14. This Court finds that the claimant, in the present case, while filing the statement of claim had specifically prayed to set aside the order dated 06.06.2007 for encashment of his Bank Guarantee and return/refund of the amount deducted i.e. Rs. 1,05,45,760/- and Rs. 1.77 Crores (approx.) along with interest @ 18% p.a. till its realization. 15. This Court finds that if the interest was claimed in the claim petition at a particular percentage, i.e. 18% p.a. in the present case till its realization, the claimant was within its right to quantify the amount of interest and as such, it cannot be said that the amount of interest is an exaggerated claim on behalf of the claimant or it is beyond the scope of statement of claim, filed by the claimant. 16. This Court finds that while hearing the counsel for the parties, for determination of fees of the arbitral Tribunal, the sole Arbitrator had specifically observed that on the claimed amount, fees was to be paid, as per sub-section (14) of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 read with Schedule-IV appended thereto. The sole Arbitrator had further made it clear that after quantification of amount of interest, fees of the arbitral Tribunal was to be re-determined accordingly. 17. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that exaggerated claim, multiplied by almost five times than the original claim, comes more than the amount claimed in the claim petition, should be construed as an exaggerated claim, this Court finds that the award of interest or particular claim, payable or not payable, will finally depend on the award to be passed by the sole Arbitrator, after completion of the arbitral proceedings. This Court finds that if any amount is claimed against interest on a particular sum/claim or if any counter claim is filed by any of the party to the proceedings, the same cannot result into depriving the party concerned to claim the amount. 18. This Court finds that if any amount is claimed against interest on a particular sum/claim or if any counter claim is filed by any of the party to the proceedings, the same cannot result into depriving the party concerned to claim the amount. 18. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that after appointment of the sole Arbitrator, the way in which proceedings were conducted and affidavit was sought from the Officer-In-Charge, amounts to giving rise to justifiable doubts about independence and impartiality of the sole Arbitrator and as such, as per Section 13 of the Act of 1996, the sole Arbitrator may not be allowed to proceed further in the matter, this Court finds that the allegation of the petitioner is wholly baseless and ill-founded. The determination of fees by the arbitral Tribunal, following the provisions of the Act of 1996, cannot be construed as a challenge to the appointment of sole Arbitrator, giving rise to any doubt about his independence and impartiality. 19. The issue of fixation of fee by the Arbitrator during arbitral proceedings and the matter reaching up to the stage of final arguments then challenging such action of Arbitrator of fixing fee by way of filing an application under Sections 14 and 16 of the Act of 1996, has been considered by Delhi High Court in the case of G.S. Developers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Alpha Corp Development Private Limited, O.M.P. (T) (Comm.) No. 54/2019 and I.A. Nos. 8116-8117/2019, dated 29th May, 2019. 20. The Delhi High Court, in the said judgment, has held that if the Arbitrator fixes his fee then the application filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1996, raising an allegation of bias cannot be entertained and the only remedy is to await the award and challenge the same along with challenge to the final award and as such, the application under Section 14 of the Act of 1996 has not been held maintainable. Relevant Para Nos. 18 and 19 of the judgment in the case of G.S. Developers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “18. By the above order, the Arbitrator has recorded the entire sequence of events and the way in which the proceedings have been held before the Arbitrator specially with regard to fixation of fee. Relevant Para Nos. 18 and 19 of the judgment in the case of G.S. Developers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “18. By the above order, the Arbitrator has recorded the entire sequence of events and the way in which the proceedings have been held before the Arbitrator specially with regard to fixation of fee. While rejecting the application under Section 13(2) of the Act filed by the petitioner, the Arbitrator in paragraph 58 of the said order has passed the following directions as far as the fee is concerned: “58. Although the Respondent does not press upon the prayer (a) of the Application dated 28th March 2019, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal now amends the fee structure of the matter as laid in Order dated 12th May 2017 to Fourth Schedule of the Act. The Tribunal shall now charge Rs. 37.50 Lakh for the Claim as well Rs. 37.50 Lakh for the Counterclaims, to be shared equally between the Parties. The Respondent may make the payments as per Fourth Schedule for the Claims as well as the Counterclaims within 10 days of the receipt of the Order. In case, the Respondent fails to make payment of the its share of fees for the Claims and Counterclaims, then the Claimants may make payment of the Respondent's share of fee for the Claim as well as Counterclaim within 10 days thereafter. The Tribunal is mindful of the fact that the Claimant had refused to pay the Respondent's share of the fee for the Counterclaim, but that was so in the background of the fee structure laid in the Order dated 12th May 2017. In the event, the Claimants do not make such payments then the matter will proceed for the arguments of the Respondent on the Claims as well as Counterclaims and Rejoinder arguments thereafter, and the aspect of arbitral arrears shall be dealt at the stage of making of the Award, as per law. The Fee Memos elated 18th December 2017 and 17th January 2019 issued by the Tribunal are withdrawn.” 19. Be that as it may, if the allegation of bias is raised under Section 13 of the Act, the remedy of the petitioner is only to await the Award and thereafter challenge the same if so, advised, along with its challenge to the Final Award. Be that as it may, if the allegation of bias is raised under Section 13 of the Act, the remedy of the petitioner is only to await the Award and thereafter challenge the same if so, advised, along with its challenge to the Final Award. The petitioner cannot file an application under Section 14 of the Act.” 21. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that under Section 39 of the Act of 1996, the arbitral Tribunal has power to have lien on the arbitral award for any unpaid costs of the arbitration and as such, no insistence should have been made by the sole Arbitrator to charge exorbitant fees, after quantification of amount of interest, this Court finds that determination of fees of Arbitrator, as per the claim, has to be as per sub-section (14) of Section 11 read with Schedule-IV appended to the Act of 1996 and such fees of the Arbitrator cannot be held to be unpaid costs of arbitration which should have any lien on the arbitral award. 22. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitral Tribunal has power to determine the costs as per Section 31A of the Act of 1996 and the arbitral Tribunal can fix the amount of deposit or supplementary deposit, as an advance for the costs referred to in sub-section (8) of Section 31, in view of the provisions contained in Section 38 of the Act of 1996 relating to deposits, this Court finds that as far as application of Section 38 of the Act of 1996 is concerned, the same cannot be attracted in the present facts of the case, as the costs of Arbitration can be decided by the sole Arbitrator, after taking into account various parameters, as provided under Section 31A of the Act of 1996. The non-payment of fees may not be brought into the coverage of ‘regime for costs’ as provided under Section 31A of the Act of 1996. 23. The issue with regard to terminate mandate of the Arbitrator under Section 14 of the Act of 1996 came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways Limited, 2019 (5) Arb. L.R. 235 (SC). 23. The issue with regard to terminate mandate of the Arbitrator under Section 14 of the Act of 1996 came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways Limited, 2019 (5) Arb. L.R. 235 (SC). In the said judgment, the Apex Court considered the scope of Section 31(8) read with Section 31A of the Act of 1996 and held that the Arbitrator’s fee may be component of costs to be paid but it is a far cry thereafter to state that Section 31(8) and Section 31A of the Act of 1996 would directly govern contracts, in which, a fee structure has already been laid down. The Apex Court also found that the law, laid down in the case of National Highways Authority of India (supra), was also not correct view of law. Relevant Para Nos. 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “5. The matter then came up before the Arbitral Tribunal, which was by then constituted, in which the Tribunal passed an order dated 23.08.2017, in which it stated as follows: “1.12.1 Fees: (a) The Claimant informed that there is no agreement between the parties regarding the fees of the AT. (b) The Respondent requested that fees of the AT may be fixed in terms of the instructions issued by NHAI vide their circular dated 01.06.2017. (c) The Tribunal considered the matter and decided that the fees of the AT shall be regulated as per provisions of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.” 6. The Respondent, against this order, moved an application dated 13.10.2017 before the Tribunal in which it sought to remind the Tribunal that the arbitral fees has been fixed by the agreement and that, therefore, they may be fixed in terms of the policy of 2017 and not as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The matter came up before the Tribunal yet again on 30.01.2018. The Tribunal then passed the following order: “3.8 The Respondent had filed an application for review of fees fixed by the AT and to modify the same in terms of the NHAI circular dated 01.06.2017. The matter came up before the Tribunal yet again on 30.01.2018. The Tribunal then passed the following order: “3.8 The Respondent had filed an application for review of fees fixed by the AT and to modify the same in terms of the NHAI circular dated 01.06.2017. It was brought out that the Claimant had inadvertently informed the AT as per Para 1.12.1(a) that there was no agreement between the parties regarding the fees of the AT. In fact, the agreement provides for a fixed rate of fee of the AT as agreed by the parties. Oral submissions on this matter were made by both the parties. The AT deliberated on the matter and has decided that in view of the latest provision in the amended Act, the AT is competent to fix the fees regardless of the agreement of the parties. This is as per judgment dated 11.09.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of NHAI vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways. The AT reiterated that the fees fixed in the 1st hearing shall be followed. Accordingly, fees shall be regulated as per provisions of 'the fourth Schedule of the amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. Faced with this order, the Respondent moved an application on 08.05.2018 Under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to terminate the mandate of the arbitrators, inasmuch as, according to the Respondent, the arbitrators had wilfully disregarded the agreement between the parties and were, therefore, de jure unable to act any further in the proceedings. 12. We may, however, indicate that the application that was filed before the High Court to remove the arbitrators stating that their mandate must terminate, is wholly disingenuous and would not lie for the simple reason that an arbitrator does not become de jure unable to perform his functions if, by an order passed by such arbitrators, all that they have done is to state that, in point of fact, the agreement does govern the arbitral fees to be charged, but that they were bound to follow the Delhi High Court in Gayatri Jhansi Roadways Limited case which clearly mandated that the Fourth Schedule and not the agreement would govern. 13. 13. The arbitrators merely followed the law laid down by the Delhi High Court and cannot, on that count, be said to have done anything wrong so that their mandate may be terminated as if they have now become de jure unable to perform their functions. The learned Single Judge, in allowing the Section 14 application, therefore, was in error and we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge on this count. 14. However, the learned Single Judge's conclusion that the change in language of section 31(8) read with Section 31A which deals only with the costs generally and not with arbitrator's fees is correct in law. It is true that the arbitrator's fees may be a component of costs to be paid but it is a far cry thereafter to state that section 31(8) and 31A would directly govern contracts in which a fee structure has already been laid down. To this extent, the learned Single Judge is correct. We may also state that the declaration of law by the learned Single Judge in Gayatri Jhansi Roadways Limited is not a correct view of the law.” 24. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that this court in the case of Doshion Private Ltd. (supra) has not approved the charging of exorbitant fees, suffice it to say that in the present case, the fees of the sole Arbitrator has been fixed as per the powers conferred under sub-section (14) of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 read with Schedule-IV appended thereto. The sole Arbitrator, on the basis of total claim, after quantification of amount of interest, if has followed the Schedule-IV appended to the Act of 1996, no illegality can be found in such decision of the sole Arbitrator. 25. This Court further finds that the petitioners have participated in the arbitral proceedings before the sole Arbitrator at several stages after initial order passed on 28.04.2019, permitting quantification of amount of interest and fees of arbitral Tribunal to be re-determined accordingly. The conduct of petitioners to participate continuously in the arbitral proceedings clearly proves that when the matter was heard at final stage, they challenged the orders of sole Arbitrator before the Court below. The petitioners, having participated in the arbitral proceedings, are e-stopped to challenge the order of the sole Arbitrator of re-determination of arbitral Tribunal’s fees. The conduct of petitioners to participate continuously in the arbitral proceedings clearly proves that when the matter was heard at final stage, they challenged the orders of sole Arbitrator before the Court below. The petitioners, having participated in the arbitral proceedings, are e-stopped to challenge the order of the sole Arbitrator of re-determination of arbitral Tribunal’s fees. This Court finds that conduct of the petitioner, by participating in the arbitral proceedings, e-stops them to challenge the order passed subsequently by the sole Arbitrator. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is devoid of any merit, hence, the same is dismissed.