Res judicata, limitation, and delayed-payment interest: pre-commencement supply transactions fall outside the 1993 Act, but simple interest may still be awarded.

An unadjudicated claim cannot operate as res judicata, and limitation may be saved where the claimant bona fide pursued earlier proceedings and secures exclusion of that period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. On delayed-payment interest, liability under the 1993 Act depends on whether the supply transaction arose after the Act commenced; where the supply order pre-dated commencement, the Act does not apply and compound interest is not payable. In such a case, the court may still award reasonable simple interest under Section 34 CPC. The decree was modified to substitute simple interest at 9% per annum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred by res judicata; (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation; (iii) whether the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 applied and entitled the plaintiff to compound interest.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred by res judicata.

Analysis: The claim for interest had been raised earlier in the writ proceedings and in the earlier money suit, but the issue of interest was not heard and finally decided on merits. The writ petition was later permitted to be withdrawn to enable the plaintiff to file a properly constituted civil suit. An issue that has not been adjudicated upon cannot operate as res judicata.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by res judicata.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The cause of action for the claim arose on 1.6.1993, but the plaintiff had been bona fide prosecuting the writ proceedings. The High Court had directed exclusion of the period spent in those proceedings if an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was filed, and such an application was filed before the trial court. The excluded period brought the suit within time.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 applied and entitled the plaintiff to compound interest.

Analysis: The plaintiff was a registered small scale industrial unit and the Act contains mandatory provisions for interest on delayed payment, but the decisive factor was the date of the supply order. The supply order in this case was issued on 16.7.1992, which was before the Act came into force on 23.9.1992. Applying the governing principle that the Act does not apply to transactions preceding its commencement, the plaintiff was not entitled to interest under the Act. However, considering the nature of the transaction and the absence of an agreement for interest, the Court awarded simple interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure instead.

Conclusion: The Act of 1993 did not apply, and compound interest at monthly rests was not payable; the plaintiff was entitled only to simple interest at 9% per annum.

Final Conclusion: The decree was modified by disallowing interest under the 1993 Act and substituting simple interest at 9% per annum from 1.6.1993 till realisation, thereby granting the appellants only partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability to pay interest under the 1993 Act depends on whether the supply transaction arose after the Act commenced, and where the Act is inapplicable, the court may grant reasonable simple interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---