Allowed

The Supdt. Engineer, Narasaraopet, Guntur v. M/S R.K. Engineering, Secunderabad and 1

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2023WP/6705/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition. Relying on the Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors, it held that where no supplies were made by the claimant after the commencement of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, the applications cannot be entertained.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications to be closed.

The Supdt. Engineer, Narasaraopet… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶3

W.P. No.6705 OF 2005

¶4

ORDER : (per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

¶5

Heard Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, the learned Special Government Pleader, attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, for the writ petitioner and Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, apart from perusing the material on record.

¶6

On an application filed by the first respondent, the 2^nd respondent-Andhra Pradesh Facilitation Council initiated proceedings bearing No.29/3/0/892 under the provisions of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (for short “the Act, 1993). The petitioner herein raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the said claim before the 2^nd respondent, principally on the ground that pursuant to the contract, no supplies were made by the first respondentclaimant subsequent to the advent of the enactment of the Act, 1993. However, the 2^nd respondent’s counsel overruled the said objection vide impugned order dated 17.07.2004. In

¶7

¶8

the above background, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted.

¶9

The Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.M.P.No.8910 of 2005 in W.P.No.6692 of 2005 granted interim stay of all further proceedings and the same has been in existence since then.

¶10

When the matter is taken up today, the learned Special Government Pleader placed on record the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Conductors Private Limited and another Vs., Assam State Electricity Board and others¹ . In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the provisions of the Act, 1993, at paragraph 98, held as follows:

¶11

“98. The High Court following the judgment of this Court in Purbanchal Cables & Conductors held that with regard to transaction, which had taken place prior to 23.09.1992, the 1993 Act is not applicable. The appellants have appealed against the judgment of the High Court dated 12.02.2015. The pleading on the record does not indicate that any supply was made by the appellant subsequent to enforcement of the 1993 Act. We have already held that the mere fact that supply

¶12

1 (2019) 19 Supreme Court cases 529

¶13

¶14

orders were issued prior to enforcement of the Act does not deny the applicability of the 1993 Act, in the event, supply has been made after the enforcement of the Act. There being nothing on record to come to the conclusions that any supply was made after the enforcement of the Act so as to enable the appellant to claim interest under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the 1993 Act, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court does not need any interference in this appeal.”

¶15

Admittedly, in the present case, no supplies were undertaken by the 1^st respondent subsequent to the advent of the present Enactment of 1993. Therefore, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand.

¶16