SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 445

2012 (4) Supreme 369
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(H.L. Dattu & Anil R. Dave, JJ.)
M/s Purbanchal Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Assam State Electricity Board & Another — Respondents
Assam State Electricity Board & Others — Appellants
versus
M/s Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. & Another — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2348 of 2003 with Civil Appeal No. 2351 of 2003
Decided on 10-07-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS
Suit for only interest is maintainable.
Act 1993 shall not have retrospective effect.
Binding precedent.

Headnote:(a) Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 – Section 6(2) – Suit only for higher rate of interest on delayed payment is maintainable. (Para 12)

        (2010) 5 SCC 44 – Relied upon

        2001 (2) GLT 121 – Referred

        (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 34 – To award interest is a discretionary power. (Para 26)

        (c) Interpretation of statutes – Retrospective operation – A substantive law accruing vested interest in a party and corresponding liability on another party operates prospectively – Only a procedural or declaratory law operates retrospectively – The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 being a substantive law shall operate prospectively. (Paras 39 to 41)

        (2010) 5 SCC 44; (2004) 8 SCC 1; (1996) 9 SCC 516; (2001) 2 SCC 721; (2011) 6 SCC 739; (2001) 8 SCC 24; (1974) 1 SCC 567; (1976) 1 SCC 906; (1976) 2 SCC 917; (1977) 1 SCC 593; 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 295; (2008) 12 SCC 112; (2005) 13 SCC 19 – Relied upon

        2001 (2) GLT 121; (2008) 7 SCC 169; (1995) 5 SCC 5; (2009) 12 SCC 324 – Referred

        (d) Administration of Justice – Binding precedent – Principles and laid down law discussed. (Paras 47 to 63)

        (1989) 1 SCC 101; (1991) 4 SCC 139; (2000) 5 SCC 488; (2009) 10 SCC 689; (1981) 2 SCC 362; (1989) 2 SCC 754; (1990) 4 SCC 207; (1999) 4 SCC 11; (2005) 2 SCC 673; (2011) 2 SCC 132; (2011) 12 SCC 615; (1990) 4 SCC 453 – Relied upon

        (e) Administration of Justice – Referring an issue to larger Bench – When doubting veracity of a judgment the pleading should make out a case for reconsideration of the matter by referring the matter to a larger Bench. (Paras 66 and 68)

        (f) Indian Contracts Act – Section 62 – Novation or alteration of contract is mixed question of fact and law – Should be raised before the court of first instance. (Para 69)

       Facts of the case:

        1. Supplies were made after the stipulated period but within the extended period. Payments were made thereafter.

        2. Supplier claimed interest on such delayed payment which was refused.

        3. Supplier instituted a money suit under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 which was decreed.

        4. Division Bench of the High Court, following 2001 (2) GLT 121 allowed the appeal thereagainst and dismissed the suit.

        5. Full Bench of the High Court overruled the above decision and remitted the matter to the Division Bench.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J.-Since the issues in these appeals are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

Factual background of the two appeals

2. The facts in brief needs to be stated for answering the issues raised. They are: In the case of Purbanchal Cables (C.A. No. 2348 of 2003), the supplier is the manufacturer of Aluminium Conductors Steel Reinforced (for short “ACSR”) for various specifications. The respondent-Board had placed orders for supply of ACSR of different specifications in three (3) quarterly phases, i.e. in June 1992, September 1992 and December 1992 with the appellant vide supply order dated 31.3.1992. In pursuance to the said supply order, the supplier had initially made delivery of goods with respect to three bills on 16.09.1992, but did not receive payment from the respondent. Subsequently, the supplier had made another delivery of goods with respect to nine other bills in between 25.09.1992 and 30.03.1993. These supplies were made after the expiry of the time stipulated in the agreement/supply order, but after obtaining specific extension of time by the buyer. The supplier had completed the entire supply by 12.10.1993 and received the payment for such supplies from the respondent in the month of September and October, 1993. In pursuance to such supplies, the supplier has raised the demand for interest on delayed payment made by the respondent, vide its letters dated 14.12.1992 and 3.12.1993, however, the same was not acceded to by the buyer.

3. The supplier had instituted a Money Suit No.109 of 1996 before Assistant District Judge No.1, Kamrup for the payment of interest to the tune of ‘24,57,927.28/-, on delayed payment of principal amount by the respondent, under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’). The said suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup vide his order dated 27.01.2000 in favour of the supplier, who granted the compound interest @ 18.25% per annum plus interest of 5% above the said rate of interest with monthly rest till realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had filed a Regular First Appeal No. 80 of 2000 before the High Court of Gauhati. The Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit vide its judgment and order dated 18.8.2001 on the ground that suit is not maintainable as no amount was due on the date of institution of the suit and thereby followed its earlier view rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Assam State Electricity Board and Another v. M/s Trusses and Towers (P) Ltd. (F.A. NO. 109/95), 1 2001 (2) GLT 121, whereby and whereunder a Division Bench of the High Court had held that a suit for interest simpliciter was not maintainable when the principal amount was received without any demur and that the Act did not revive the claims that were already settled. The High Court has also, inter alia, directed the appellant to refund the amount of ‘ 10 lakhs, paid by the respondents pursuant to the Court’s direction at the time of admission of the appeal to the respondent within a period of two months and failure to pay within such period would entail interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved by this decision of the High Court, the supplier has preferred this appeal.

4. In the case of Shanti Conductors (C.A. No. 2351 of 2003), the Board had placed two supply orders for the manufacture and supply of KM ACSR Penther Conductors, and the supplier completed the supplies in eight parts between 22.03.93 and 04.10.93. In March 1997, about three and a half years of making the supplies, and after the receipt of the entire amount, the supplier filed a suit for interest on delayed payment by the Board in terms of the provisions of the Act, in Money Suit No. 21/1997 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 1, Guahati. The same was disputed by the Board in the written statement fi

































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top