1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 01.04.2010 in Arbitration Suit No.44/2008, passed by the VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The said order is impugned at Annexure-M to the petition.

2. The facts in brief which has lead to the impugned order is that the petitioner and first respondent had entered into an agreement dated 01.04.2004 relating to providing infrastructure and personnel to enable the petitioner to execute the work order dated 29.04.2002 awarded by M/s Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. The details of difference or dispute between the parties relating to its terms need not be adverted to, but the fact remains that due to certain dispute the first respondent claiming to be a ‘Supplier’ as defined under Section 2(f) of The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (‘IDPSSAIU Act’ for short) approached the Karnataka Industrial Facilitation Council (‘KIFC’ for short) under Section 6(2) of the said Act. During the pendency of the proceedings, the said Act was repealed with effect from 02.10.2006 and The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSMED Act’ for short) was enacted to replace the same. The Conciliation and Arbitration proceedings continued under the new Act. The same culminated in the award dated 14.07.2008.

3. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said award has invoked the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A & C Act’ for short) which should be in terms of Section 19 of the MSMED Act. In the pending proceedings, the first respondent has filed an application under Section 19 of the MSMED Act praying that the suit be rejected since 75% of the arbitral award amount has not been deposited. Alternatively, it was sought that the petitioner herein be directed to deposit the amount. The application was objected to by the petitioner herein. The Court below after considering the rival contentions in detail has by its order dated 01.04.2010 arrived at its conclusion to allow the application and permit the petitioner herein to deposit 75% of the award amount. It is against the said order, the petitioner herein is before this Court.

4. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri L.A. Rubens, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.G.S. Kamal, learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the petition papers.

5. Though elaborate arguments are addressed and several precedents are cited, the limited scope of consideration available in a writ proceedings against an interlocutory order passed by the Court below is to be kept in view, more particularly when the contentions with regard to the validity or otherwise of the award is yet to be decided by the Court below. Hence, the relevant aspects and decisions are adverted to come to a conclusion only on the limited aspect touching upon the issue raised in opposing the application and to find out whether there is any perversity committed by the Court below or if the order is so unreasonable so as to call for interference. To that extent, the legal contentions are adverted to.

6. At the outset, from the decision in the case of Snehadeep Structures Private Limited –vs- Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation (2010(3) SCC 34) and in the case of Goodyear India Limited –vs- Norton Intech Rubbers Private Limited and Another (2012(6) SCC 345) as also the final order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same case relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent, it is clear that the legal position enunciated is that the application for setting aside the decree, award or order as provided under Section 34 of the A & C Act is in terms of the Petition/Suit under Section 19 of MSMED Act. In such event, the pre-deposit of 75% of the award amount is a mandatory requirement and the Court has no discretion to reduce or waive the amount. To that