Supplier registration under the delayed-payment law is not confined to the forum State; maintainability was upheld.

A small-scale industrial undertaking with a permanent registration certificate issued by a State or Union Territory could invoke the delayed-payment mechanism before a Council in another State. The definition of "supplier" in section 2(f) was read to make registration with "a State" sufficient, and that expression was treated as deliberate rather than a filing-territory requirement. The Act was characterised as a protective measure for payment and interest on delayed dues, so State-level rules could not narrow a right the statute itself conferred. The objection to maintainability was rejected, and the application had to be received and processed under the Act and the Rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether a small-scale industrial undertaking registered in one State could invoke the Act before the Council constituted in another State for delayed-payment claims arising out of a contract executed and performed there.

Analysis: The statutory definition of "supplier" in section 2(f) speaks of a small-scale or ancillary industrial undertaking holding a permanent registration certificate issued by the Directorate of Industries of a State or Union Territory. The use of the expression "a State" was treated as deliberate and not as a reference to the State where the claim is filed. The Act was held to be a protective measure intended to secure payment and interest on delayed payment, and the State-level rules framed under section 7B could not impose a restriction that the Act itself did not contain. The location of registration was therefore held to be irrelevant so long as the unit held the requisite permanent registration and the claim arose from the contractual transaction in question.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected, and the petitioner was entitled to have its application received and processed under the Act and the Rules.

---