Shree Ram Roadlines and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** LISA GILL, J. This petition has been filed for modification of order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh praying that petitioner be permitted to deposit 75% of the principal sum of the arbitral Award only i.e. Rs.41,23,363/ and not Rs.58,70,602/ i.e. 75% of the total amount as directed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in providing logistic services to various Multi Nationals and top brands in the industry. Award dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P4) was passed by the learned Arbitrator under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSMED Act' for short) on the claim raised by the respondent claimant. Present petitioner was held liable to pay: a) Principal sum of Rs.41,23,363.00. 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on 05092022 23:18:19 ::: CR31582022 (O&M) 2 b) Interest on the Principal amount of Rs.41,23,363.00 under Section 16 of the MSMED Act at the rate of Three (3) times of RBI Bank Rate compounded monthly from date of last payment of payment i.e. 31.01.2018 till date of till actual realisation. c) A sum of Rs. 25,000/ (Twenty Five thousand) towards costs of Arbitration. Petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Arbitration Act') was filed by the petitioner challenging Award dated 13.02.2020 inter alia on the ground that material facts and circumstances have been ignored by the learned Arbitrator with mandatory provisions of law and well established legal principals not being adhered to and unwarranted inferences being drawn. Notice was issued to the respondent in the said petition for 02.05.2022. Petitioner has been directed to deposit 75% of the awarded amount in terms of Section 19 of MSMED Act vide impugned order dated 15.07.2022. It is further directed that sum of Rs.17 lakhs already paid by the petitioner would be considered to be a part and parcel of said 75% amount. Aggrieved therefrom, this petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that learned Additional District Judge has grossly erred in directing the petitioner to pay 75% of Rs.58,70,602/ whereas it should be 75% of Rs.41,23,363/ for the reason that this is the principal amount found to be due as per award dated 13.02.2020 which otherwise is the subject matter of challenge in the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Inclusion of component of interest to determine 75% of the amount due, it is stated, is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. Amount of Rs.20 lakhs stated to be deposited by the petitioner by way of demand draft dated 12.04.2022, it is submitted, has not been adjusted in 75% of the amount directed to be 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on 05092022 23:18:20 ::: CR31582022 (O&M) 3 deposited. Remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act it is strenuously urged would be rendered infructuous and meaningless in case petitioner has to deposit such a huge amount. It is, thus, prayed that this revision petition be allowed and order dated 15.07.2022 be modified accordingly. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file with his able assistance. At this stage, it is useful to refer to Section 19 of the MSMED Act, which reads as under: 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 provid