Back
kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.626 OF 2014 Dattatray s/o Shankarrao Borgaonkar, Then Proprietor Shree Industries, Aurangabad, A Small Scale Industrial Unit, registered with the Directorate of Industries, Maharashtra State, Age : 86 years, Occ : At present Nil.
R/o Parijat Building, Bhagyanagar, Aurangabad. ..APPELLANT (Original Plaintiff)
-VERSUS-
1 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Having its registered office at “Krupanidhi”, 9, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.
Through its Managing Director.
2 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited.
Represented by its Divisional Manager, Aurangabad Division Office.
3 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Nashik Division Office.
..RESPONDENTS (Original Defendants)
…...
Mr.A.D.Kasliwal, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.A.R.Borulkar, Advocate for the Respondents.
…...
WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.631 OF 2014 Dattatray s/o Shankarrao Borgaonkar, Then Proprietor Shree Industries, Aurangabad, A Small Scale Industrial Unit, registered with the Directorate of Industries, Maharashtra State, Age : 86 years, Occ : At present Nil.
R/o Parijat Building, Bhagyanagar, Aurangabad. ..APPELLANT (Original Plaintiff)
-VERSUS-
1 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Having its registered office at “Krupanidhi”, 9, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.
Through its Managing Director.
2 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited.
Represented by its Divisional Manager, Aurangabad Division Office.
3 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Nashik Division Office.
4 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ahmednagar.
..RESPONDENTS (Original Defendants)
…...
Mr.A.D.Kasliwal, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.A.R.Borulkar, Advocate for the Respondents.
…...
WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.151 OF 2015 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited.
Represented by its Divisional Manager, Aurangabad Division Office.
..APPELLANT -VERSUS-
1 Dattatray s/o Shankarrao Borgaonkar, Proprietor Shree Industries, Aurangabad, A Small Scale Industrial Unit, registered with the Directorate of Industries, Maharashtra State, Age : 39 years, Occ : Business.
R/o Parijat Building, Bhagyanagar, Aurangabad.
2 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Having its registered office at “Krupanidhi”, 9, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.
Through its Managing Director.
3 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Nashik Division Office.
4 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ahmednagar.
..RESPONDENTS …...
Mr.A.R.Borulkar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.A.D.Kasliwal, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
…...
WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.152 OF 2015 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited.
Represented by its Divisional Manager, Aurangabad Division Office.
..APPELLANT -VERSUS-
1 Dattatray s/o Shankarrao Borgaonkar, Proprietor Shree Industries, Aurangabad, A Small Scale Industrial Unit, registered with the Directorate of Industries, Maharashtra State, Age : 39 years, Occ : Business.
R/o Parijat Building, Bhagyanagar, Aurangabad.
2 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Having its registered office at “Krupanidhi”, 9, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.
Through its Managing Director.
3 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Nashik Division Office.
..RESPONDENTS …...
Mr.A.R.Borulkar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.A.D.Kasliwal, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
…...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Reserved on :- 06th May, 2015.
Pronounced on : 08th May, 2015.
JUDGMENT:
1 The Appellant in the first two Appeals is the original Plaintiff, who preferred Special Civil Suit Nos.252 of 2002 and 253 of 2002 before the Trial Court. The Respondents in the first two Appeals are the original Defendants. These two parties shall henceforth be referred to as the Plaintiff and Defendants or Defendant, respectively.
2 The Defendants have preferred the third and the fourth Second Appeals referred above. The Plaintiff is the Respondent in the said Appeals.
3 In Special Civil Suit No.252/2002, the Plaintiff had sought recovery of Rs.03,21,590/- with interest. In Special Civil Suit No.253/2002, the Plaintiff had sought recovery of Rs.04,72,737/- with interest. Needless to state, these recoveries through both these Suits were directed against the Defendants.
4 The prayer set out in SCS No.252 of 2002 is as under:-
“Suit of the plaintiff be decreed with costs along with future interest @ 22% P.A. monthly compounded against the defendants jointly & severally for Rs.3,21,590/- and oblige.”
5 The prayer set out in SCS No.253 of 2002 is as under:-
“Suit of the plaintiff be decreed with costs along with future interest @ 22% P.A. monthly compounded against the defendants jointly & severally for Rs.4,72,737/- and oblige.”
6 By the judgment and order dated 16.08.2010, both the Suits were decreed with costs and the Plaintiff was held entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,21,590/- and Rs.4,72,737/-, from the Defendants with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Suit i.e. 10.10.2002 till it's realization.
7 The Defendants preferred RCA Nos.376/2012 and 389/2012 on 23.12.2010. Both of them were registered on 14.06.2012 and 12.09.2012, respectively. In both these Appeals, the Plaintiff filed the cross objections. By the judgment and order dated 15.07.2014, the Appeals as well as the Cross Objections were also dismissed. As such, the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants have preferred the above mentioned four Second Appeals before this Court.
8 In the first two Appeals herein, the claim of the Plaintiff is for enhancement of future interest as he is aggrieved by the grant of future interest @ 6% per annum instead of the claim for future interest at the rate of 22% per annum.
9 In the two Appeals herein preferred by the Defendants, the contention of the Defendants is that no amount of interest should have been granted by the Trial Court as well as the first Appeal Court since “The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale & Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993” (herein after referred to as “the 1993 Act”) is not applicable to the Defendants.
10 While hearing these four Appeals on admission, both the learned Advocates Shri A.D.Kasliwal for the Plaintiff and Shri A.R.Borulkar for the Defendants, graciously agreed to address the Court on the merits of the Second Appeals. It is in these circumstances that I have heard both the learned Advocates extensively on 07.04.2015, 18.04.2015 and 06.05.2015.
11 On 06.05.2015, I have framed the following substantial question of law in the first two Second Appeals filed by the Plaintiff:-
“Whether, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned first Appeal Court were justified in granting only 6% interest on the delayed payment and towards future interest as against the interest @ 22% provided under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale & Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993?”
12 In the third and the fourth Appeal preferred by the Defendants, I have framed the following substantial questions of law:-
(1) Whether, Special Civil Suit Nos.252/2002 and 253/2002 were maintainable against the Defendants without impleading the buyer/ consignee/ purchaser as a Defendant?
(2) Whether, the terms and conditions between the Defendants and the Plaintiff, make the Defendants liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment and/or future interest till the realization of the outstanding amount?
13 I have heard the respective Counsel on final disposal of these
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
