TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Pre-1993 Contracts Not Covered by Act: Appeal Allowed, Judgment Set Aside</h1> <h3>A.S.E.B. and Ors. Versus Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd.</h3> The High Court held that the suit was not maintainable under the 1993 Act for contracts entered into before the Act's enforcement, despite delayed ... - 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 SuitThe 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 LimitationThe 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 FormThe 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 UnitThe 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 AmountThe 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 ReliefsGiven 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
