1.Lustre Engineering Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents ..... Mr.Abhijit Desai I/b. Desai Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr.Nigel Quraishi with Sonam Kotak I/b. Dushyant Krishnan, for Respondent no.1. Mr.Dushyant Kumar, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : G.S.KULKARNI, J. DATE : 1 MARCH, 2019. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. An application on behalf of the petitioner is in regard to the actual amount which should be required to be deposited as directed by this Court in the order dated 5 February 2019. 2. Considering the provisions of Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006, this Court on 5 February 2019 had ordered that the petition challenging the award as made by the Facilitation Council as constituted under the Act, cannot be entertained unless the aggrieved party has deposited 75% of the amount in terms of the decree/award. The Arbitral Tribunal in the present case has made the 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on 12/03/2019 22:00:57 ::: pvr 2 908carbpl11719.odt following award: "Order: 1. The reference Petition is allowed in terms of Prayer. 2. The Respondent is required to pay to the Petitioner Rs.8,03,24,449/ (Rs.Eight Crores Three Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred Forty Nine only) along with the interest as per the Section 16 of MSMED Act 2006 on each and every due amount of the invoices/work completed when become payable after the deduction of 30 days till the realisation of the amount to the Petitioner. 3. The Principal and interest amount are to be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner within the period of One month from the date of this award. 4. No order as to cost. 5. The case is disposed off and closed." 3. The application of Mr.Desai is in regard to the exact amount which needs to be deposited in pursuance of the order dated 5 February 2019 passed by this Court. Mr.Desai has placed on record a statement according to which the petitioner would contend that an amount of Rs.6,18,25,925.20 being 75% of the awarded amount is required to be deposited. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 has placed on record a detailed calculation and according to which the respondents would contend that an amount of Rs.22,71,62,293.90 would be required to be deposited. 5. Apparently there is much variation in the amounts as claimed by the respective parties which needs to be deposited. In view of the different stands as taken by the parties on the actual amount which would be required to be deposited, can very well be determined by appointing a Chartered Accountant. 6. The learned Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court is directed to appoint a Chartered Accountant from the panel of the High Court who shall examine the award and as to what would be the 75% deposit as per the above provision of the said Act. 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on 12/03/2019 22:00:57 ::: pvr 3 908carbpl11719.odt 7. Needless to observe that the statements as placed on record on behalf of the parties shall also be forwarded to the Chartered Accountant who would be so appointed. 8. Fees of the Chartered Accountant shall be paid by the parties in equal proportion. 9. Stand over to 25 March 2019. 10. Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court shall take steps to see that a report of the Chartered Accountant is available on record on the adjourned date of hearing. 11. If any clarification is required by the Chartered Accountant on any of the issue, the learned Prothonotary & Sr.Master shall ask the parties to furnish necessary particul