Having answered the reference in the above terms, the matter was sent back to the Division Bench for companysideration of the appeal on merits.
Decree for payment of interest was passed at the rate of 24 per cent in terms of the Act of 1993.
The Trial Court decreed the suit on 02.02.2000 for recovery of the amount of Rs.
The Full Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 05.03.2002 answered the reference in affirmative by holding that a suit for interest alone companyld be filed.
Ltd. for a total companysideration of Rs.
On 05.03.1994, the entire payment of Rs.
51,60,507.42 with companypound interest at the rate of 23.75 p.a.
Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Division Bench for its companysideration in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in the reference.
The trial companyrt as also the High Court, therefore, companymitted a manifest error in directing payment of interest at the rate of 23 up to June 1991 and 23.5 thereafter.
66 of 2000 and MC No.
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?
Aggrieved of the said judgment and order, M s Trusses Towers Pvt.
75 of 2001 before the High Court of Gauhati.
The Electricity Board filed the written statement on 16.09.1998, inter alia, raising the plea of limitation and companytending that the Act is number applicable to the case of the appellant M s Shanti Conductors as the companytract was companycluded prior to the enactment of the Act.
The supplies of the aforesaid goods were to be made between January and February, 1993.
with monthly rests from the date of the suit till realization.
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?
Meanwhile, the supply of equipments under the aforesaid purchase orders was companypleted by M s Shanti Conductors on 04.10.1993.
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.
The 1993 Act, thus, will have numberapplication in relation to the transactions entered into between June 1991 and 23 9 1992.
32.49 lacs.
The Full Bench framed the following questions that needed to be answered 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?
3472 of 2012 respectively, by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati.
9924 9925 of 2013, which have been directed against the impugned final judgment and orders dated 20.11.2012 and 20.12.2012 passed in RFA No.
2.15 crores against the aforesaid supply orders was received by M s Shanti Conductors.
Hence the present appeals.
Vide order dated 18.10.2001, the Division Bench of the High Court referred the matter to the Full Bench.
For the sake of companyvenience, reference is made to the facts of the appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.
Ltd. supra , the Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2012 set aside the judgment of the Trial Court by allowing Regular First Appeal No.
Subsequently, on 10.01.1997, M s Shanti Conductors filed a suit for recovery of Rs.53.68 lacs on account of interest on delayed payments and future interest at the rate of 27 per annum on the decreetal amount.
The High Court on 19.03.2013 passed an order in the said Review Petition allowing only 9 simple interest per annum.
The facts of the case which are required to appreciate the rival legal companytentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief as under On 31.03.1992, the respondent Assam State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Board placed an order for supply of Aluminium Electrical Conductors from the appellants M s Shanti Conductors Pvt.
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 present appeals were listed together as a companymon question of law arises in all of them for companysideration before this Court.
The Act came into force w.e.f.
Supply orders were made on 16.7.1992.
Similarly, in the companynected appeals also, the High Court had held in the impugned judgment and orders therein that the appellants are number entitled for the interest on the delayed payment as the companytracts had been entered into prior to the companymencement of the Act.
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.
15274 of 2013 on 10.04.2013.
Ltd. filed SLP C No.
In Shakti Tubes supra again, the question whether the Act is prospective or retrospective, came up for companysideration before a Division Bench of this Court.
Aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order, the Electricity Board filed Regular First Appeal No.
66 of 2000 before the High Court of Gauhati.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
66 of 2000.
23.9.1992 and would number apply to transactions which took place prior to that date and interest at the rate of 23 per cent was disallowed on the transactions entered into between June, 1991 and 23.9.1992.
1.22 crores.
The supplies were to be made between June and December, 1992.
Accordingly, the petitioner therein filed Review Petition No.
It further held that the Act is applicable to companytracts entered into prior to 23.09.1992, i.e. the date on which the Act came into force.
