VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, J. :

” We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

' i. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 17.09.2012 passed by respondent No.1;

ii. Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the condition imposed in Section 19 of the Act, 2006 of depositing 75% of the amount of the award as a condition precedent for entertaining the objection/application to set aside the award as ultra vires the Constitution;

iii. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation of the impugned award dated 17.9.2012 passed by respondent No.1;

iv. Issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon” ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case;

v. Award costs to the petitioner from the contesting respondents.'

3. The relief prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above writ petition is that the conditions imposed in Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short the ' Act” ) are ultra vires to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Section 19 of the Act is extracted below:”

' 19. Application for setting aside decree, award or order.” No application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council, shall be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it seventy five per cent. of the amount in terms of the decree, award or, as the case may be, the other order in the manner directed by such court:

Provided that pending disposal of the application to set aside the decree, award or order, the court shall order that such percentage of the amount deposited shall be paid to the supplier, as it considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case subject to such conditions as it deems necessary to impose.'

4. The constitutional validity of Section 19 of the Act was challenged before the High Court of Madras in the case of Eden Exports Company v. Union of India and others, reported in (2013) 1 MLJ 445 : (2012) Supreme (Madras) 4654 [Writ Application Nos. 2461, 2475 and others of 2011 and Writ Petition Nos. 27319, 27888 and others of 2011, which was decided on 20.11.2012] wherein in paragraph 14, the Court has considered the validity of condition of 75% pre-deposit as contemplated in Section 19 of the Act. Paragraph-14 of the aforesaid decision is extracted below:”

' 14. Coming to the challenge in respect of 75% pre-deposit contemplated under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, we have no hesitation in confirming the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge in this regard, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. The Hon” ble Supreme Court in Snehadeep Structures Private Limited v. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited, (2010) 3 SCC 34 : (AIR 2010 SC 1497) has categorically held that the introduction of pre-deposit clause is a disincentive to prevent dilatory tactics employed by the buyers against whom the small-scale industry might have procured an award. The aforesaid decision has been followed by the Kerala High Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. Union of India and others, (2010) 1 KLT 65 and this Court in Goodyear India Limited, Rep. By its Zonal Manager v. Nortan Intech Rubbers (P) Ltd. and another, 2011-3-L.W. 626. Therefore, the appellants/writ petitioners no more cannot contend that the condition of pre-deposit imposed in Section 19 of the MSMED Act is arbitrary.'

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has relied on the decision of the Apex Court, wherein the Court has held that the introduction of pre-deposit clause is