Mishra, J.- 1. The petition has been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by order dt.3l-l-2009 passed by the Court of District Judge, Sidhi in Civil MJC No. 1/09.

2. Petitioner M/s. R.S.Avtar Singh and Co., a registered partnership firm aggrieved by award dt. 23-10-2007 and award/order dt. 26-2-2008 passed by Facilitation Council, Vindyachal Bhawan Bhopal under section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1996"). An application under section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2006") read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code had been filed seeking exemption/waiver from depositing 75% of awarded amount. Notice had been issued to respondent No. 1 who had preferred objection thereto. During the pendency of the petition respondent No. 1 approached the Collector, Singrauli seeking recovery of Rs. 9,99,693/- along with interest thereon from the petitioner. Recovery Certificate dated 6-11-2008 has been issued by the Collector and forwarded to the Dy. Collector, Saket, New Delhi to recover the said amount from the petitioner as the arrears of land revenue. The application under section 19 of the Act of 2006 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code to stay the certificate of recovery and for waiver has been rejected vide order dt.31-1-2009. Hence, the petition.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the rejection of the application for waiver is on wrong premises. Application under section 34 of the Act of 1996 is pending before the trial Court. In the circumstances, the waiver under section 19 of the Act of 2006 ought to have been ordered. Writ petition has been filed challenging the vires of certain provisions which is pending consideration.

4. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there is provision under section 19 of the Act of 2006 to waive the amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Court should not have insisted for deposit of 75% amount. Alternatively, he has submitted that in case the amount is ordered to be deposited the respondent NO.1 may not be permitted to withdraw it. He has submitted that three times interest is required to be paid on the amount of Rs.9,99,693/- which is excessive. Thus, it would be proper to waive the condition of deposit of 75% amount in the facts of the case.

5. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. I has submitted that there is no justification in the prayer to grant waiver as provided in section 19 of the Act of 2006. He has further submitted that the proviso to section 19 deals with question whether the deposited amount to be paid to the supplier or not pending disposal of the application to set aside the award or order.

6. The Act of 2006 has been enacted with a view to extend support for the small enterprises so that they are able to grow into medium ones, adopt better and higher levels of technology and achieve higher productivity to remain competitive in a fast globalization area. The Act is intended to provide single legal framework to small and medium enterprise sector. Intention is also to make further improvements as to the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. It has also intended to ensure timely and smooth flow of credit to small and medium enterprises as well as minimizing instances of sickness among them. Section 19 of the Act of 2006 reads thus:

"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 th