JUDGMENT

Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral)

This single order shall dispose of three revisions petitions filed by the parties as the facts are common and issues are inter-related.

2. The brief facts are that the M/s Steel Authority of India (for brevity 'SAIL') placed a purchase order with MR Beltings, Sonepat (for short 'Supplier') for supply of 1400 Conveyor Belts. The supplier was registered under Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to 'MSME Act'). The dispute was referred to the MSME Council for resolution and the proceedings culminated in award dated 15.03.2018. Aggrieved of the award, SAIL on 11.07.2018 filed objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1996 Act) at Gurugram. The pre-deposit of 75% as per Section 19 of the MSME Act was made though late i.e. within the extended period granted by the Court. It would be apposite to mention here that the extension of time granted by the Court is not under challenge before this Court. The supplier filed an execution petition at Sonipat attaching the list of properties. The SAIL filed objections in the execution petition raising the issue of jurisdiction and that petition filed is pre-mature. The objections were dismissed on 17.07.2019. The dismissal of objections is subject matter of Civil Revision No. 6689-2019.

3. An application under Section 34 (3) of 1996 Act, was filed by the supplier in the Gurugram Court for dismissal of the objections as time barred. The contention was that as 75 % pre-deposit was not made alongwith the objections and hence are barred by limitation. At the same time an application was filed under Section 19 (3) of MSME Act for release of 75% pre-deposit made by SAIL. The application was allowed and it was ordered that the amount shall be released subject to furnishing of bank guarantee.

4. The application filed under Section 19 of the MSME Act was disposed of balancing the equity between the parties and taking into consideration the principles for stay of money decree. The amount was ordered to be released to the supplier and at the same time ensuring that the amount is secured in the eventuality of success of the SAIL in proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.

5. Before proceedings further it would be apposite to note that in the list of property attached by the supplier in the execution petition, no property of the SAIL at Sonipat was mentioned.

6. As regards to the contention raised that the objections filed under Section 34 of 1996 Act should be dismissed as time barred for not being accompanied with pre-deposit amount was rightly rejected. The pre deposit was made within the extended time granted by the Court. The extension of time was not challenged.

7. Section 19 of the MSME Act is reproduced:-

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 am