<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (5) TMI 682 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752629</link>
    <description>The 1998 proviso to section 3 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 curtails contractual freedom on payment timing by limiting any agreed payment date to a maximum of 120 days from acceptance or deemed acceptance. Interest under sections 4 and 5 is payable only after the appointed day, and its computation depends on determining the relevant acceptance date. Contractual terms linking payment to delivery, acceptance, or receipt from the consignee must therefore conform to this statutory ceiling. The text also notes that the treatment of compound interest as principal for section 5 was not satisfactorily examined in the arbitral award.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2024 09:19:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 682 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752629</link>
      <description>The 1998 proviso to section 3 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 curtails contractual freedom on payment timing by limiting any agreed payment date to a maximum of 120 days from acceptance or deemed acceptance. Interest under sections 4 and 5 is payable only after the appointed day, and its computation depends on determining the relevant acceptance date. Contractual terms linking payment to delivery, acceptance, or receipt from the consignee must therefore conform to this statutory ceiling. The text also notes that the treatment of compound interest as principal for section 5 was not satisfactorily examined in the arbitral award.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>