G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J:-

These civil revision petitions are filed seeking to assail the order dated 8.6.2007 in LA. No.12l of 2007 in O.P. No.1630 of 2003 and batch, on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said petitions filed by the petitioners herein under Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C., read with Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, (Central Act 27 of2006) (for short 'the New Act'), praying to decide the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the original petitions without deposit of 75% of the awarded amount, were dismissed.

2. As this batch of civil revision petitions involve common questions of fact and law and have arisen out of the impugned common order, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioners herein entered into certain contracts with the first respondent for supply of conductors, cables/wires of varying quantities under various purchase 211 orders. The petitioners filed a claim statement before the second respondent A.P. Industry Facilitation Council for payment of amounts outstanding, with interest. Awards were passed in favour of the petitioners. The first respondent filed original petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act) challenging the said awards passed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners filed batch of applications seeking a direction to the first respondent to deposit 3/4th of the amount awarded, before the original petitions can be entertained. The said petitions were dismissed. The petitioners filed C.R.P. No.1815 of 2005 and batch before this Court and they were also dismissed. The S.L.Ps preferred by the petitioners before the Supreme Court are stated to be pending. While so, the petitioners filed fresh applications in I.A. No.121 of 2007 and batch subsequent to coming into force of the New Act, repealing the earlier Act i.e., the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, (Act 33 of 1993) (for short 'the Old Act'). The said batch of fresh applications were also dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, by the impugned common order dated 8.6.2007, holding that the first respondent can continue to have the benefit accrued under the Old Act and need not deposit 75% of the amount awarded, as required under the New Act for the maintainability of the original petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the present batch of civil revision petitions is filed.

4. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents are heard. Records are perused.

5. The main contention of the petitioners is that Section 19 of the New Act imposes a bar on the maintainability of the petitions for setting aside the award unless the applicant has deposited 75% of the amount awarded and in the absence of such deposit, the petitions are not maintainable.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the object of the New Act is to confer a privilege on the small-scale industry for the default in (payment of money due to it and the presence of the New Act is to be construed in such a manner as to achieve the desired objective.

7. The learned Counsel for the first s respondent, on the other hand, would contend a that by virtue of Section 32(2) of the n New Act, notwithstanding the repeal under sub-section (l) of Section 32 of the Old a Act, nothing contained or any action taken c under the Act so repealed, shall be deemed a to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the New Act 0 and, therefore, the petitions which were a validly instituted under the provisions of a] the Old Act, shall be deemed to have been duly instituted under the corresponding t1 provisions in Section 19 of the New Act as a well. She would further contend that the valuable right which i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document