The judgment established the continued liability of the defendant for payment into the Cement Regulation Account despite the repeal of certain provisions. It also underscored the significance of complying with statutory timelines for seeking leave to defend.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The plaintiff Union of India (UOI) instituted this suit under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of Rs. 4,34,78,523/- with future interest from the defendant Kalyanpur Cements Ltd. pleading:

(i) That the defendant was a cement producer and cement being a controlled commodity, under the provisions of the Cement Control Order, 1967 read with Sections 18(G) and 25 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951, the ex factory price of the cement produced by the defendant was fixed at Rs. 168.91/- paise per metric tonne and the said price was modified from time to time.

(ii) That the defendant, depending upon its sale of cement, was to pay every month into the Cement Regulation Account (CRA) maintained by the plaintiff at Delhi.

(iii) That as per the books of account maintained by the plaintiff in respect of CRA, a sum of Rs. 2,10,94,588/- was due from the defendant to the plaintiff as on 1st January, 1991 and which the defendant failed to pay in spite of repeated demands.

(iv) That the defendant, vide its letters dated 23rd August, 1989, 4th August, 1993 and 12th May, 1997 acknowledged the said debt and made part payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- in two instalments of Rs. 4,00,000/- each on 3rd February, 1998 and 4th June, 1998.

(v) That though the defendant after making said part payment requested for time to pay the balance amount but did not pay.

(vi) That the defendant submitted an application on 3rd August, 1989 seeking deferment in payment of CRA dues and promised to pay the amount in quarterly instalments of Rs. 60,00,000/- beginning the quarter January-March, 1994 and to pay interest at 10% per annum.

(vii) That the Government i.e. the plaintiff had also sanctioned moratorium on repayment of CRA dues for a period of four years.

(viii) That the defendant however did not honour its aforesaid commitment also.

(ix) That the defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 1st January, 1991 to 7th January, 1995 and after that at the rate of 15% as ordered by the Supreme Court qua another company in a similar case.

(x) That inclusive of the said interest, a sum of Rs. 6,34,78,523/- is due and for recovery of which this suit was being filed.

2. The suit was entertained and summons for appearance issued and upon the defendant entering appearance, summons for judgment were issued.

3. On 7th May, 2001 i.e. before the service of summons for judgment, the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant sought reference to the Lok Adalat and the matter was accordingly referred.

4. Evidently no settlement was arrived at and summons for judgment were issued and IA No.6363/2000 for leave to defend and IA No.6388/2000 for condonation of delay in applying for leave to defend were filed.

5. On 15th July, 2002, the counsel for the defendant stated that the defendant intended to move an appropriate application as the defendant company was before Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).

6. Though no such application was filed but the order dated 21st April, 2003 records that the counsel for the plaintiff had verified that the defendant had approached the BIFR with application No.7266/2002 and BIFR was seized of the matter; accordingly the proceedings in the suit were stayed sine die with liberty to either of the parties to get the same revived if so advised.

7. Neither party applied for revival of the suit and the Registry of its own listed the suit on 2nd February, 2007 when it was informed that the defendant was still before the BIFR. After several adjournments, vide order dated 3rd February, 2009, the proceedings in the suit were again adjourned sine die with liberty to the parties to revive the same as and when the order was passed by the BIFR.

8. Again none applied for revival of the suit and the Registry of its own listed the suit on 13th August, 2015 when court notice was issued to the defendant.

9. The defendant filed an affidavit stating that though the claim for rehabi