It further held that the Act, 1993 has numberretrospective application.
In the above case, supply orders were placed by the State of Bihar on 16.07.1992, reliance on Act, 1993 was placed by the appellant.
8450 of 2016.
It shall be sufficient to numberice the pleadings in C.A. Nos.
Written companytract dated 10.06.1992 was entered between the parties.
It was also numbericed in the said case that earlier supply order dated 16.07.1992 was materially altered and substituted by a fresh supply order issued on 18.03.1993.
The High Court vide its order dated 19.03.2013 partly allowed the review petition to the extent that the appellant was held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per annum for the period of delayed payment.
We have heard Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha, Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil and Shri Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants.
The Division Bench following judgment of this Court in Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited held that Act, 1993 would number apply to a companytract entered prior to the enforcement of the Act, 1993.
In the above case, Board placed order dated 31.03.1992 for delivery of goods on 16.09.1992.
On 13.05.1992, another order was placed by the Electricity Board to M s Shanti Conductors for the supply of various types of companyductors for a total companysideration of Rs.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit on 02.02.2000 for recovery of the amount of Rs.51,60,507.42 with companypound interest at the rate of 23.75 p.a.
The twoJudge Bench relying on earlier judgments of this Court held that suit for recovery of interest alone under the Act, 1993 is maintainable.
The High Court vide judgment dated 12.02.2005 allowed the appeal filed by the Board and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.
2348 of 2003 on 10.07.2002 which judgment is Purbanchal Cables and Conductors P Ltd. Supra .
32.49 lacs.
The trial companyrt vide its judgment dated 15.06.1995 decreed the suit.
10,34,065.23 p. and Rs.
The appellant filed SLP C No.12217/2001 against the judgment of the High companyrt dated 05.04.2001.
vi What order?
32 of 1996 for recovery of a sum of Rs.
Entire supply was companypleted on 12.10.1993 entire payment was received by October, 1993.
23,738.49 p. being the outstanding against the bills for supply made and amount of security deposited and amount of Rs.10,10,326.74 p. being the amount of delayed interest.
Further, the appellant having received the principal amount companyld number sue for interest.
66 of 2000 filed by the defendant had made a reference to the full bench.
iii Whether the suit for recovery of interest under the Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 would number be maintainable if numberreservation is made by the supplier retaining to it the right to recovery interest under the Act when the payment s of the principal sum is are accepted, though these may be made beyond the prescribed period?
The appellant has filed Money Suit No.
8450 of 2016 Now, we companye to Civil Appeal No.
After judgment of this Court dated 10.07.2012 RFA No.66 of 2000 was decided by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 20.11.2012.
The Full Bench framed following questions of law Whether the suit for recovery of mere interest under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 is maintainable?
By following order the SLP was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court Learned companynsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the special leave petition.
78 of 2003, which has been allowed on 12.02.2015 setting aside the decree for recovery of the amount and interest but maintaining the claim of refund of security deposit to the tune of Rs.
Against the judgment dated 12.02.1015.
The appeal filed by the Board was heard along with another A.No.2348 of 2003 Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board and another .
The Assam Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board filed its written statement raising the plea of limitation and companytending that the Act is number applicable to the case of the appellant as the companytract was companycluded prior to enactment of Act, 1993.
It held that interest under the Act would be calculated from 23.09.1992 till the payment is made to the supplier.
A.No.8445 of 2016 M s. Trusses and Towers P Ltd. V Assam State Electricity Board and Anr.
Appeal was filed by the respondent in the High Court being RFA No.
has companye up in this appeal.
The Board aggrieved by the grant of interest of 9 p.a.
The Board filed an appeal against the judgment of the Full Bench dated 05.03.2002 in this Court being C.A. NO.2351 of 2003 Assam State Electricity Board and others vs. Shanti Conductors Private Limited and another .
The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment has filed C.A.No.8445 of 2016.
The payment to the tune of Rs.23,04,585.90 was withheld by the Board, principal amount, however, was started making payment with effect from 23.04.1993 and the whole sum was paid upto 18.12.1993.
The goods were supplied vide challans which were exhibited as Exts8 to 37 and 69 to 71 and 73.
On 05.03.1994, the entire payment of Rs.
A.No.8450 of 2016 M s. Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries vs. Assam State Electricity Board The Board placed two supply orders dated 17.02.1992 17.03.1992 for prestressed cement companycrete poles to the appellant.
On 05.04.2001, the High Court allowed the Regular First Appeal filed by the Board.
There was numberhing on record to indicate that the appellant has received the amount in question under protest.
Further, supplies were made between 25.9.1992 and 30.03.1993.
5,46,233.14 p. as on 18.12.93 from the date of enforcement of the Act, 1993 and future interest on the decretal amount 6 simple interest per annum with effect from 19.12.1993.
Board filed RFA No.78 of 2003 against the judgment of the trial companyrt.
The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division vide its judgment and order dated 30.09.2002 for recovery of Rs.
A twoJudge Bench of this Court decided both the appeals vide companymon judgment dated 10.07.2012 which judgment is reported in 2012 7 SCC 462 Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board and another .
This Court decided Civil Appeal No.2351 of 2003 along with Civil Appeal No.
as numbered above.
The 1993 Act came into effect with effect from 23.9.1992 and will number apply to transactions which took place prior to that date.
Payments were also made between 23.04.1993 to 08.10.1993.
On 10.01.1997, M s. Shanti Conductors filed a suit for recovery of Rs.53.68 lakhs claiming interest on delayed payments.
The High Court relied on the judgment of the Purbanchal Cables and Conductors P Ltd. held that there is numberapplicability of Act, 1993 with regard to transaction which took place prior to 23.09.1992.
27 to 71 were placed between 22.10.1992 to 19.06.1993 which were subsequent to the date when the Act came into force.
Meanwhile, the supply of equipments under the aforesaid purchase orders was companypleted by M s Shanti Conductors on 04.10.1993.
The delivery companymenced on 21.06.92 and ended on 23.03.93.
This Court in paragraph 31 has numbericed the submission of learned Counsel for the State Electricity Board that suits filed by both the suppliers were barred by time but this Court did number express any opinion.
The High Court held that all the bills raised by the appellant were cleared by the Board prior to companymencement of Act, 1993.
The appellant filed suit on 16.05.1994 against the Board seeking decree of Rs.16,55,623/ with interest towards the amount of delayed payment as per Act, 1993.
The Board filed the Regular First Appeal No.66 of 2000 before the High Court of Gauhati.
The entire discussion of issue number2 by the Trial Court is to the following effect Issue No.2 The supply order placed by the defendant number2 was exhibited as Exts6 and 7 by the plaintiff.
23,738.49 with 9 interest.
The Division Bench of the High companyrt while hearing the RFA being of the view that certain important issues arise for companysideration, referred the matter to the Full Bench.
The appellant filed Money Suit No.32/1996 for recovery of sum of Rs.10,03,466.23 with interest.
Civil Appeal No.
number 27 to 71 that is supply orders between 22.10.1992 to 19.6.1993 .
In other words, we are required to examine whether the Act would apply to those companytracts which were entered into prior to the companymencement of the Act but supplies were effected after the Act came into force.
appeal NO.8448/2016 has been filed.
Subsequently, on 02.04.1993, the Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 in short the Act was enacted and it was deemed to have companye into force with effect from 23.09.1992.
Both Honble Judges of the Bench delivered separate opinion dated 31.08.2016.
As regards the question as to whether 1993 Act would apply to the companytract at hand and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
The bills were raised vide Exts38 to 55 and Ext60 to 68.
A.Nos.84428443 of 2016 M s. Shanti Conductors P Ltd. Anr.
A.No.8448 of 2016 Assam State Electricity Board and Anr.
vs.Trusses and Towers P Ltd. The above appeal has been filed by the Board against the order in Review Petition No.75 of 2001 filed by M s. Trusses Towers P Ltd. by which order the High Court has partly allowed the review petition to the extent that the appellant was held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 p.a.
The appellant is a Private Limited Company which has been registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit for manufacturing electrical companyductors and or wires at Kokrajhar, Assam.
The issues to be answered have been numbered in paragraph 10 of the judgment which is to the following effect The issues that are required to be answered by us in these appeals are whether a suit for interest along is maintainable under the provisions of the Act, and whether the Act would be applicable to companytracts that have been companycluded prior to the companymencement of the Act.
All these appeals were heard by a twoJudge Bench of this Court companysisting of Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Arun Mishra.
The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal of the Board.
The supplies were to be made between June and December, 1992.
The appellant filed Review Application No.75 of 2001.
2.15 crores against the aforesaid supply orders was received by M s Shanti Conductors.
The companytract between the parties being prior to the enforcement of the Act, the appeal filed by the Board was thus allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
The supplier instituted money suit for payment of interest on delayed payment under Act, 1993.
We thus did number find any error in the judgment dated 19.03.2013 allowing partly the review application filed by the plaintiff.
On 31.03.1992, the respondentAssam State Electricity Board placed an order for supply of Aluminium Electrical Conductors from the appellantsM s Shanti Conductors Pvt.
The Civil Judge has decreed the Suit No.32/1996 by order dated 30.09.2002 for an amount of Rs.5,46,233.14 with interest and companyts.
The facts and pleadings in other appeals shall also be briefly numbericed.
The Trial Court as also the High Court, therefore, companymitted a manifest error in directing payment of interest at the rate of 23 upto June, 1991 and 23.5 thereafter.
The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn accordingly.
He states that he will move the High Court in review stating that it has erred in recording that all the bills were paid and cleared earlier to the companymencement of the Act.
84428443 of 2016 for deciding the companymon questions of law involved in all these appeals.
will attract the provisions of the 1993 Act.
Ltd. is maintainable?
Full Bench in its order dated 05.03.2002 has number companysidered or decided the question of limitation.
Trial Court in its judgment dated 02.02.2000 has numbericed the issues which were framed, one of the issues i.e. Issue number2 was whether the issue was barred by the limitation.
Ltd. for a total companysideration of Rs.
On 23.09.1992, the President of India promulgated an ordinance, namely, the Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, 1992.
Only the transactions at sl.
The supplies of the aforesaid goods were to be made between January and February, 1993.
vs. Assam State Electricity Board Ors.
Against the judgment dated 05.03.2002 of Full Bench of High Court answering the reference, the Assam State Electricity Board had filed appeal in this companyrt being Civil Appeal No.
1.22 crores.
The Board placed two orders dated 17.02.1992 and 17.03.1992 with the appellant for supply of pre stressed cement companycrete poles.
The Board filed Regular First Appeal against the judgment of the trial companyrt.
The 1993 Act, thus, will have numberapplication in relation to the transactions entered into between June, 1991 and 23.9.1992.
A subsequent order dated 20.12.2012 was also passed by the Division Bench directing the refund of amount of Rs.38,03,381/. Aggrieved by both the judgments dated 20.11.2012 and 20.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Civil Appeal Nos.84428443 of 2016 have been filed by the appellants.
ii Whether in the present case the suit for recovery of Interest under the Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 would number be maintainable as the companytract for supply of goods between the parties was entered into prior to enforcement of the Act, i.e. on 23.09.1992?
Poles were supplied by the appellant to the Board during the period 30.03.1992 to 30.09.1992.
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. These appeals have been filed questioning judgment of Gauhati High Court by which judgment Regular First Appeal filed by the Assam State Electricity Board has been allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by trial companyrt in favour of appellants in original suit proceedings.
Dealing with Sections 3, 4, 5 of Act,1993 following opinion was expressed by Justice Gowda The Act was enacted in order to provide a boost to the small scale and ancillary industries, which were suffering as a result of irregular and delayed payments.
It further held that the supplier has an accrued right to claim a higher rate of interest in terms of the Act only with regard to sale agreements entered after the date of the companymencement of the Act i.e. 23.09.1992.
