9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Cause of action for the suit. 2. Barred by limitation. 3. Suit maintainability in its present form. 4. Plaintiff's status as an SSI Unit. 5. Entitlement to decree for realization of the amount. 6. Entitlement to other reliefs. Summary: Issue 1: Cause of Action for the Suit The High Court found that the plaintiffs had a valid cause of action based on the delayed payments by the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) for supplies made by M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Limited, an SSI unit, under two supply orders. Issue 2: Barred by Limitation The trial court concluded that the suit was not barred by limitation, referencing Section 10 of the 1993 Act, which has an overriding effect. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the last payment was made on 05-03-1994, and the suit was filed on 10-01-1997, within the three-year limitation period. Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, was also considered relevant as it allows exclusion of the period during which the plaintiff was prosecuting another civil proceeding. Issue 3: Suit Maintainability in its Present Form The trial court and the High Court found the suit maintainable. The Full Bench of the High Court had previously ruled that a suit for mere interest under the 1993 Act is maintainable even if the contract was entered into before the Act's enforcement, provided the payment was delayed and made after the Act came into force. Issue 4: Plaintiff's Status as an SSI Unit The trial court confirmed that the plaintiff, M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Limited, was registered as an SSI Unit, making it eligible for the benefits under the 1993 Act. Issue 5: Entitlement to Decree for Realization of the Amount The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding interest on delayed payments under the 1993 Act. However, the High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board, concluded that the 1993 Act does not apply to contracts entered into before the Act's enforcement on 23-09-1992, even if payments were made after the Act came into force. Consequently, the suit for interest was not maintainable, and the decree was set aside. Issue 6: Entitlement to Other Reliefs Given the resolution of the primary issues, the question of other reliefs became moot. The High Court did not grant any additional reliefs beyond setting aside the decree. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, concluding that the suit was not maintainable under the 1993 Act for contracts entered into before the Act's enforcement, despite delayed payments made after the Act came into force. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree were set aside with costs.
|
