Dismissed

Brahmaputra Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Siddharth Singh and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Aug 2022Cont.Cas(C)/515/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court closed a contempt petition alleging violation of an order regarding payment of dues. While closing the specific contempt, it directed an inquiry into an apparent pattern of delays causing excessive interest payments to MSMEs, potentially constituting an economic offence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Brahmaputra Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Siddharth Singh and… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010260952018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/515/2018

¶5

BRAHMAPUTRA UDYOG (PVT.) LTD.

¶6

A PVT LIMITED COMPANY REGD UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SIDDHARTH SINGH AND 4 ORS THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781003

¶9

2:BIREN BHATTACHARYA THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PHED DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781003

¶10

3:SAUMYA KUMAR BARUA THE CHIEF ENGINEER PHED GOVT OF ASSAM HENGRABARI GHY- 03

¶11

4:LAWRENCE INTY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER PHED OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER PHED HENGRABARI GUWAHATI

¶12

5:TAPAN BORDOLOI

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHE STORES AND WORKSHOP DIVISION BETKUCHI GUWAHAT

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S KHOUND

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P N GOSWAMI (R1-R4,R5)

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 11-08-2022

¶20

Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents contemnors in PHE Department.

¶21

This contempt petition is instituted alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 23.05.2018 in WP(C) No. 3241/2018, wherein there is a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.04.2018 for making payment of outstanding dues with interest within a period of three months thereof.

¶22

We have taken note that the direction of this Court is to consider and pass an order in the representation of the petitioner dated 26.04.2018 and if the result of such order being passed requires making of any payment of outstanding dues, the same be done with interest. It is stated that the representation of the petitioner had been given its consideration and as a result thereof, approximately Rs. 18 crores has been paid to the petitioner which is stated to be only the interest component, over and above the principal amount.

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior counsel has raised an issue that the amount already paid may not be adequate enough to meet the entitlement of the petitioner under the law. But however, as the representation had been considered and the initial amount had been paid, we are of the view that the allegation of wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 23.05.2018 cannot be sustained any further. However, it the petitioner had been paid an amount which would be lesser than their actual entitlement under the law, liberty remains to approach again by filing appropriate application.

¶25

Contempt petition stands closed as indicated above.

¶26

Although we have closed the contempt petition, it is noticed that in respect of the items supplied by the petitioner, because of the delay caused by the respondents authorities in making the payment, a huge amount of interest is required to be paid under the MSME Act. Although the provision of the MSME Act for payment of very high interest is a beneficial provision for the MSME industries but at the same time there is also a legal duty on the part of the respondent authorities accepting the supplies made by the MSME industries to make the payments at the earliest so as to avoid the payment of the very high interest.

¶27

In the instant case, there appears to be an inordinate delay in making the payment resulting in a very high interest being paid to petitioner. The provisions of the MSME Act may be a beneficial provision for the MSME industries but the public interest also requires that that the beneficial provisions for the MSME industries are not being used as a tool by some other authorities to create a situation where public money are being drained out. If it is so, it may constitute an economic offence of its own.

¶28

Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General states that there are

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

many instances where payments of such high interest amounts had taken place and the Department desires to provide a complete list of such instances for an appropriate enquiry. The departmental authorities may provide such list and if provided the ADGP, BI(EO) to ensure that the necessary enquiry is made.

¶31

In circumstance, we direct the ADGP, BI(EO) to look into the circumstances in which in this present case, interest which was several times more than the principal amount had to be paid to the petitioner and why the delay had occurred and whether the reasons of it happening amounts to an economic offence under the law. If the ADGP, BI(EO) after making necessary investigation arrives at any conclusion or has material to indicate that it amounts to an economic offence, appropriate action under the law be taken. 10. The departmental authorities may provide such list as referred by the learned Addl. Advocate General, and if provided the ADGP, BI(EO) to ensure that the necessary enquiry is made. The direction for the enquiry to be conducted by the ADGP, BI(EO) is issued as a consequential relief in the contempt petition on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent departments as well as in the public interest and further from the point of view that if the orders of this Court are being taken advantage of by the departmental authorities to indulge in an illegality, the same would also be within the contempt jurisdiction of the Court .

¶32

A judicial notice can also be taken that this may not be an isolated incident but an occurrence that may happen frequently. The ADGP, BI(EO) to also look into all such instances and arrive at its own satisfaction whether there are violations of law by any authority. If so, appropriate action be taken. In doing so, the authorities to cooperate with the ADGP, BI(EO) for doing the needful. A status report of what is being done pursuant to this order be

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

informed to the Registry after three months.

¶35

A copy of this order be furnished to both Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General and Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, for doing the needful.

¶36

J U D G E

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Brahmaputra Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Siddharth Singh and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Brahmaputra Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Siddharth Singh and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Rajdeep Das Vs Amit Khare and 2 Ors.

Hemoram Das Vs Juri Phukhan and Anr.

M/S. Dangarkuchi Paka Betbari Meen Samabai Samittee Ltd. Vs Tilak Kr. Kalita

Anil Kumar Agarwal and 3 Ors. Vs Kumar Sanjay Krishna and 7 Ors.

Md. Abdul Kader Vs Rakesh Kumar

Forjan Nessa Vs v. v Rakesh Reddy

Trailokya Das Vs Nitin Khare and Anr.

Israfil Ali Vs Jadav Saikia, Acs and Anr.

Kabir Ahmed Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Hiranya Hazarika and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Lalita Keot Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Miss. Sikha Saha Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rupnath Bordoloi Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.