2001 (4) TMI 859

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iff. M.G. Mimani for the defendant. JUDGMENT 1. The claim in the summary suit is based on goods sold, supplied and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant under an invoice dated 27-1-1996. The total amount which is due and payable to the plaintiff under the invoice is Rs. 33,792. The plaintiff is entitled to an interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum under the terms of the invoices....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the defendant arises in respect of goods sold, supplied and delivered in 1996 which was much after the scheme was sanctioned. This point assumes some significance in the present case because the liability is not one which arises prior to the date of the sanctioned scheme. In fact, the sanctioned scheme would not make any reference to the outstanding dues of the plaintiff for the simple reason th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the scheme which was under implementation, the contention was that the bar under section 22 is not attracted. This submission was dealt with in the following observations of the Supreme Court, it was held as follows: "10. On a fair reading of the provisions contained in chapter III of Act 1/1986 and in particular sections 15 to 22, we are of the opinion that the plea put forward by the revenue ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or included in the sanctioned scheme. Such amounts like sales tax, etc., which the sick industrial company is enabled to collect after the date of the sanctioned scheme legitimately belonging to the revenue, cannot be and could not have been intended to be covered within section 22 of the Act. Any other construction will be unreasonable and unfair and will lead to a state of affairs enabling the ....