S. Vimala, J.

1. Whether the provision providing for, dispute resolution mechanism under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, through Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council would override the dispute resolution mechanism, as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Clause under the contract; out of two, which enactment is special; when each of the enactment is special with reference to the context, i.e. when the method under MSMED Act is special with reference to the nature of the dispute and when the Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is special with reference to the methodology of the dispute resolution, which shall be preferred over which and if so, under what circumstances?

Whether pre-deposit of 75% of the award amount is the prerequisite for entertaining any application for setting aside any award, decree or other orders made by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council?

Whether that pre-requisite can be waived, when the benefit of waiver is claimed, but not by the supplier?

These are the issues raised in this Application.

2. The Main Petition has been filed by the appellant/the respondent before the MSE Facilitation Council, seeking to set-aside the ex-parte impugned award, dated 05.08.2016, passed in Case No. M&SEFC/CBER/26/2016 by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Coimbatore Region.

3. Pending disposal of the petition, Application No. 1511 of 2017 has been filed, seeking stay of the award and also to waive the requirement, under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006, of the deposit of 75% of the award amount.

Brief facts:-

4. The appellant is engaged in the promotion of the renewable energy project, proposing to produce power with biomass based on Rice Straw. The project was financed by the State Bank of India, where all disbursements have to be based on approval by the State Bank of India also, as per the orders/terms, based on which project was appraised. Excise Exemption Certificate had to be issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, New Delhi.

4.1. The respondent is engaged in the line of activity of manufacturing of ESP components and he agreed to supply the same to the appellant herein. As per the terms and conditions, the appellant has to make payment to the respondent/company i.e., 20% advance against site mobilization, 70% against erection and 10% after commissioning and commencement of operation.

4.2. It is alleged that the respondent supplied goods to the extent of Rs. 1,13,12,554/-. But the appellant has paid only a sum of Rs. 1,01,27,475/- and the balance is payable. Additional expenses to the extent of Rs. 21,21,900/- is also due.

4.3. It is alleged that the appellant's project has been badly affected on account of incomplete supplies, incomplete erection and commissioning on the part of the respondent and the project has to be held up for over one-and-half years.

4.4. It is the further case of the appellant that the respondent undertook to do designing, engineering, erecting, testing commissioning and supply of three field elector static preceptors with its auxiliaries, and that subsequently the respondent did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract dated 12.06.2013 and did not complete the orders placed by the appellant and failed in carrying out the erection of ESP and ASH.

4.5. Suffice to point out that reference has already been made to MSE Facilitation Council and the Council has directed the appellant to pay the principal sum of Rs.34,56,479/- along with the compoundable interest with monthly rest.

5. Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the appellant is bound to deposit 75% of the amount awarded as a precondition to maintain this Application, as contemplated under Section 19 of the said Act.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the award itself is patently illegal and the requirement of deposit of 75% of the award amount must be waived, h