Delhi High Court
Shri P.K. Garg vs Shri S.K. Dutta & Anr. on 7 April, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 07.04.2011
+ RSA No. 58/2011 & CM Nos. 6788-89/2011
SHRI P.K. GARG ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Hariom Yaduvanshi &
Ms. Anjani Kumar Mishra,
Advocates.
Versus
SHRI S.K. DUTTA & ANR. ..........Respondents.
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
25.08.2010 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge
dated 03.01.2009 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff had been
decreed in the sum of `2,25,051/- (-) minus `57,000/- equal to
`1,68,051/- with pendent lite and future interest @ 6% per annum.
2 This is a second appeal. The appellant before this Court is the
plaintiff. His contention is that he is a small scale industry and
benefit of provisions of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small
Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 has been
denied to the plaintiff. He was admittedly a small scale industry
and he was entitled to interest on delayed payment which was
admittedly delayed.
3 The appeal is yet at the admission stage. The case of the
plaintiff as is evident from the pleadings is that the defendants had
approached the plaintiff for supply of Blue Line Servo Voltage
Stabilizers; an order for supply of two stabilizers was placed upon
the plaintiff valued `1,08,000/- each. Stabilizers were dispatched to
Jagadhari and were liable to be inspected by RITES. The
defendants raised a bill of `2,35,872/-. The plaintiff had
successfully commissioned both the stabilizers at Jagadhari
workshop. The defendants had only made part payment of
`50,000/-; balance of `1,35,872/- was due; another amount of
`13,608/- had been claimed on account of non-supply of 'C' forms;
`2,200/- as cost of notice and interest had been claimed @ 18% per
annum making a total suit amount of `1,25,051/-.
4 Contention before this Court is only that the plaintiff being a
small scale industry could not have been denied the benefit of this
legislation. It is contended that the suit of the plaintiff had been
decreed meaning thereby that it was a delayed payment which was
made by the defendants.
5 Pleadings have been perused. The plaint nowhere whispers
or states a word that the plaintiff is a small scale industry or
undertaking. This has also been admitted by learned counsel for
the appellant. It is submitted that although there is no such specific
averment yet it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a small scale
industry. From where this can be gathered is not explained.
6 Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary
Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 is a legislation which was
enacted in the year 1993. The Statement of Objects and Reasons
states that it is a policy statement on small scale industries made
by the Government; this legislation had been brought to ensure
prompt payment of money by buyers to the small industrial units.
7 The plaintiff not having said a word that he is a small scale
industrial unit, the question of applicability of this Act does not
arise. No substantial question of law has arisen. There is no merit
in this appeal. Appeal as also pending applications dismissed in
limine.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
APRIL 07, 2011
a
