ORDER : 1. Since these civil revision petitions are connected on facts, they are tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of together. C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No. 1581 of 2015 is directed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 22.07.2015, passed in E.P. No. 86 of 2014 in Arbitration O.P. No. 15295 of 2013, by the learned Principal District Judge, Karur. 2. C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No. 1582 of 2015 is directed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 22.07.2015, passed in E.P. No. 87 of 2014 in Arbitration O.P. No. 15296 of 2013, by the learned Principal District Judge, Karur. 3. The respondent is a supplier of the revision petitioner TNPL. In this connection, TNPL is to pay certain sum of money to the supplier. Under the Micro, Small and medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Act No. 27 of 2006), respondent filed two claim petitions in Arbitration O.P. Nos. 15295 and 15296 of 2013, before the Council, constituted under the said Act No. 27 of 2006, at Hyderabad. The Council passed Award directing the revision petitioner to pay Rs. 26,95,442/- in Arbitration O.P. No. 15295 of 2013 and Rs. 53,43,420/- in Arbitration O.P. No. 15296 of 2013. 4. The respondent/Decree Holder levied execution in E.P. Nos. 86 and 87 of 2014, before the learned Principal District Judge, Karur. In the E.Ps. the Executing Court ordered attachment of movables of TNPL. 5. Aggrieved, the Judgment Debtor/TNPL has preferred these civil revision petitions. 6. The revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor appealed to an Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Judgment Debtor also preferred these revisions as against the order of attachment passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Karur. Subsequently, in the interlocutory applications filed by the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor before the Court in Andhra Pradesh to condone the delay, the respondent/Decree Holder endorsed no objection and the delay was condoned. As on date appeals are pending. The Judgment Debtor also deposited 75% of the award amount. 7. According the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor, as per the provisions of Act 27 of 2006, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies and as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when an appeal is preferred, it will operate as stay. Therefore, now the respondent/Decree Holder cannot execute the decrees before the Principal District Court, Karur. Therefore, now the respondent/Decree Holder cannot execute the decrees before the Principal District Court, Karur. In the circumstance, the execution petitions before the Principal District have no legs to stand and the matter is to be agitated by both the parties before the Court in Andhra Pradesh. 8. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor would draw our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. Norton Intech Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 345 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the plea for waiver of deposit contemplated under Act No. 27 of 2006, however, it has observed that the Court has discretion to allow pre-deposit to be made in installments, if required. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Decree Holder would endorse the view of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor on the operation of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996). But, his objection would be that Section 19 of Act No. 27 of 2006 contemplates pre-deposit and unless the deposit is made no Court shall entertain any appeal/application. In such circumstances, the subsequent deposit made by the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor will not satisfy the requirement of law in Section 19 of Act No. 27 of 2006. 10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. 11. Now, the botheration of the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor is the execution petitions pending before Principal District Court, Karur. As regards the pre-deposit, subsequent payment, entertaining of the appeal are all botheration of the Court in Andhra Pradesh. Field is left open for both sides to make their submissions before the said Court. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are allowed. The Orders, dated 22.07.2015, passed in E.P. Nos. 86 and 87 of 2014 in Arbitration O.P. Nos. 15295 and 15296 of 2013, on the file of Principal District Judge, Karur, are set aside. Accordingly, the said E.Ps. are also be disposed of. Consequently, the attachments are raised. The respondent/Decree Holder is advised to approach the concerned Court in Andhra Pradesh for withdrawal of the deposited amount. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.