The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant was required to deposit 75% of the interest amount as per the provisions of Section 19 of the MSMED Act, and failure to comply with this condition would result in the dismissal of the Original Petition.

V. Periya Karuppiah, J

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 07.04.2011 made in O.P.No.888 of 2010, an application to set aside the award under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The appellant herein was the petitioner before the learned single Judge and the respondent before the Arbitrator / MSE Facilitation Council. The first respondent, who was the applicant before the said Council, raised the dispute in between the appellant and first respondent in respect of payment of the money payable towards 52 bills spanning the period 23.05.1997 to 11.02.1998 amounting to a sum of Rs.70,93,422.52 and seven bills for the period 26.08.1999 to 16.10.1999 amounting to Rs.9,18,072/- for a total sum of Rs.80,11,495/- with subsequent interest. The said claim was made before the said Council by the first respondent as applicant before the said MSE Facilitation Council (herein after referred to as Council) as per the provisions of "The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006" (herein after referred to as MSMED Act) and on the claim made, the said Council also held enquiry in accordance with the law and found the appellant liable to pay a sum of Rs.80,11,495/- with interest as prescribed in "The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (32 of 1993)" to till date of enforcement of MSMED Act (27 of 2006) and further be liable to pay compound interest with monthly rests to the supplier / applicant on that amount at three times of the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India from the date of commencement of MSMED Act till the date of settlement of the amount.

3. Against the finding and conclusion reached by the said Council, the appellant had preferred a Original Petition in O.P.No.888 of 2010 on various grounds, seeking to set aside the award dated 31.12.2009 passed by the said Council and also for costs.

4. The learned single Judge heard the arguments of both sides and had come to a conclusion on the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition and had passed a conditional order. According to the said order, the learned single Judge directed the appellant to deposit 75% of the accrued interest amount also, as 75% of the principal sum i.e., Rs.60,08,622/- was deposited already. The further order passed by the learned single Judge would go to show that the said condition to deposit 75% of the award amount for filing an application to set aside the award would include both the principal as well as interest amount as ordered in the award as per the provisions of Section 19 of the MSMED Act. It has been directed by the learned single Judge that 75% of the interest amount ordered in the award shall be paid within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed and on such payment, the Original Petition will be heard on merits.

5. Now, the appellant has preferred this appeal against the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.04.2011 passed in O.P.No.888 of 2010.

6. Heard Mr.Silambannan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.Rajani Ramadoss, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.S.Rajasekaran, who is the Managing Director of the first respondent company who appeared in person. No appearance for the second respondent.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit in his argument that the award passed by the Council was totally against law and all the points for setting aside the award should have been heard along with other objections raised before the learned single Judge and order should have been passed on all the submissions of the appellant. He would further submit in his argument that the award passed by the Council was based upon repealed Act, namely, "The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (Act 32 of 1993)" and therefore, the e