The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for recovery of mere interest under the Act is maintainable, the Act is applicable to contracts entered into prior to its enforcement, and the supplier can waive the right to recover interest on delayed payments under the Act.

Few facts which necessitated constitution of this Full Bench may be noticed.

Respondent M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (plaintiff) had filed a suit against the Assam State Electricity Board, (hereinafter called "the Board) on 10.01.97 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division No.l, Guwahati, for recovery of interest on delayed payment under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The suit was decreed on 02.02.2000 by the trial Court. It is not necessary here to notice as to what was the amount of the decree or how calculations of interest on delayed payments were made by the trial Court. The plaintiff had entered into a contract with the Board for supply of Aluminium Electrical Conductor to the Board. The contract had been entered into between the parties prior to 23.09.1992 which is me date of enforcement of the Act. Some payments towards the supply were made by the Board to the plaintiff supplier prior to coming into force of the Act and payments were made thereafter. According to me plaintiff the payments had not been made within the stipulated period.

2. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court the Board filed the present appeal (RFA No. 66/2000). When the matter had come up for hearing before a Division Bench (Myself and A.H. Saikia, J.) it was argued on behalf of the appellant that in fact the suit for mere recovery of interest under the Act was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, on the date of filing of the suit no principal amount was due from the Board to the plaintiff and consequently the suit for recovery or for realisation of mere interest only under the Act of 1993 was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the observations in para 15 the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Assam State Electricity Board -Vs- M/ s. Trusses & Towers (P) Ltd., reported in 2001 (2) GLT 121, which are to the following effect -

"15. A bare reading of the Section itself will show that there must be some amount due from a buyer and along with that amount a claim for interest may be made. No amount being due from the buyer, mere suit only for interest is not maintainable in view of Section 6( 1) of the Act quoted above."

3. It was further submitted before the Division Bench hearing mis appeal that the suit was not maintainable on two other grounds - (i) The contract between the parties had been entered into between the parties prior to the commencement of the Act i.e. 23.09.92, and (ii) Since the plaintiff (now respondents) had accepted payments of the principal amount without any reservation regarding the claim of interest under the Act, the suit was not maintainable. Reliance was again placed on the observations made in the same judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, which are to the following effect:

"23. Accordingly, we hold as follows:

i) Once the principal amount is received by a person without any reservation, thereafter he cannot make a claim for a further sum either by way of principal or interest;

ii) The Act in question did not revive the claims which were satisfied earlier and on account that also the suit is not maintainable."

The Division Bench hearing the appeal had reservations about the correctness regarding the observations made in the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench which have been referred to above, and considered it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench and that is how the Full Bench is seized of the matter.

4. The Full Bench is called upon to answer the following questions :

(i) Whether the suit for recovery of mere interest under the interest only on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 is maintainable?

(ii) Whether in the present case the suit for recovery of interest under the Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Under