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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 878

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The Deputy Chief Engineer, Gauge Conversion / Southern Railway, Arasaradi, Madurai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M/s.Savio Industrial and Structural Corporation - Respondent
C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 855 & 856 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 12155, 12156 & 13169 of 2023
Decided On : 31-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. D. Saravanan Central Govt. Senior Standing Counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr. J. Anandkumar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The MSMED Act mandates that buyers must pay compound interest on delayed payments to suppliers, establishing a statutory right for suppliers to claim such interest irrespective of any agreements to the contrary.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - DISPUTE BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND CONTRACTOR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Sections 16, 17 - The court discussed the provisions of the MSMED Act, particularly Sections 16 and 17, which mandate the payment of compound interest on delayed payments to suppliers. The court interpreted these provisions as applicable to the case, emphasizing the buyer's liability to pay interest irrespective of any agreement. The court's decision was influenced by the contractor's entitlement to interest from the appointed day until realization, confirming the MSEFC's award while addressing the Railways' claims regarding the payment of interest.

Fact of the Case:

The Railways entered into a contract with the contractor for construction work valued at Rs. 59,88,131, which was completed on time. However, due to design deviations, the final work value was Rs. 97,73,355. The Railways paid Rs. 89,31,764, withholding Rs. 10,04,651, leading the contractor to seek redress from the MSEFC, which awarded the contractor the outstanding amount with interest under the MSMED Act. The Railways challenged this award, leading to further litigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the MSEFC's award, confirming the contractor's entitlement to compound interest on the withheld amount from the appointed day until realization. The court found that the Railways failed to provide adequate proof of payment and that their claims regarding the interest were unfounded.

Issues: Whether the contractor is entitled to compound interest under the MSMED Act for the delayed payment by the Railways, and whether the Railways' claims regarding the payment of interest are valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the MSMED Act, particularly Sections 16 and 17, impose a clear obligation on the buyer (Railways) to pay compound interest on delayed payments to the supplier (contractor). The court emphasized that the contractor's right to interest is a statutory entitlement that cannot be negated by the buyer's claims or agreements.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the Railways were dismissed, confirming the MSEFC's award regarding the payment of the outstanding amount with compound interest as per the MSMED Act.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.

[PRAYER in both the C.M.As.:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.09.2022, made in Ar.O.P.Nos.189 and 230 of 2021.]

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are against the common order dated 30.09.2022, made in Ar.O.P.Nos.189 of 2021 and 230 of 2021.

2. The appellants herein are the Deputy Chief Engineer/Gauge Conversion, Southern Railway, Madurai and the Chief Engineer / South / Construction, Southern Railway, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as ''the Railways'']. The respondent M/s.Savio Industrial and Structural Corporation is a proprietary concern, represented by its Proprietor Mr. V.X. Dominic Savio [hereinafter referred to as ''the Contractor''].

3. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are as below:-

    (i) For the construction of passenger platform shelter, the Railways entered into works contract with the contractor. As per the agreement, dated 02.06.2009, the contract value was Rs.59,88,131/-. The work was scheduled to be completed within a period of six months from the date of issuance of letter of acceptance of the work. The contractor after making a security deposit of Rs.1,82,162/-, took the contract and completed the work within the time stipulated.

(ii) In the course of executing the work, there was some deviation in the design and plan, leading to escalation of the construction cost. On completion of the work, the value of the work done was estimated as Rs.97,73,355.21. The Railways paid Rs.89,31,764/- and the balance amount was withheld. Hence, the contractor being a Small Manufacturing Enterprise, filed a Petition before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Coimbatore Region [hereinafter referred to as ''the MSEFC''], claiming the total outstanding of Rs.10,04,651/- inclusive of security deposit with interest.

(iii) The said Petition in M&SEFC/CBER/15/2015 was allowed, vide Award dated 17.02.2015. The Railways was directed to pay the outstanding of Rs.10,04,651/- with compound interest with monthly rest at three times of Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India till the date of settlement. This Award was passed inconsonance with Sections16 and 17 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as ''the MSMED Act''].

(iv) The Railways, being aggrieved by the Award, filed Ar.O.P.No.80 of 2015 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Principal District Court, Madurai. In the said Ar.O.P., the Railways contended that they are liable to pay only Rs.4,69,557/- without interest. On 30.09.2019, this Ar.O.P. was disposed of, remanding back the matter to MSEFC, for fresh enquiry. The petition was renumbered as MSEFC/CBER/201/2019 and taken up for fresh consideration. After recording that the parties have exhausted the avenue of reconciliation, the MSEFC took up the matter for final disposal. After affording opportunity to the parties, the MSEFC held that pursuant to the deviation in the plan structure, the contractor has satisfactorily completed the work. Both the parties have agreed the final bill of Rs.97,73,355/-. Whereas, only Rs.89,31,764/- has been paid to the contractor. The reason stated by the Railways for deducting 10% of the cost is untenable and therefore, passed the following order:-

''Hence, on this day 10th December 2020 this MSEF Council orders that the respondent pays the petitioner his outstanding due of Rs.8,41,591/- together with compound interest with monthly rest at three times of Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated vide Sections 16 and 17 of MSMED Act 2006, calculated from the appointed day 31.08.2010 till 13.05.2016 and for Rs.78,068/- with compound interest with monthly rest at three times of Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated vide Sections 16 and 17 of MSMED Act, 2006, calculated from 13.05.20

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          Judicial Analysis

          AI

          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