Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S Hind Paints & Chemicals vs M/S Accurate Transformers Ltd

Supreme Court6 January 2009Cyriac Joseph · Altamas Kabir

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a winding-up proceeding involves a dispute over delayed payment to a small-scale or ancillary industrial undertaking, and a Company Judge has granted an aggrieved creditor liberty to move the civil court to establish its claim for interest under the Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, a Division Bench of the High Court has no authority to withdraw such liberty in appeal on the ground that the amount of interest payable should be determined solely in the winding-up proceedings; the creditor must retain the right to approach the civil court to seek relief under the statutory provisions of the 1993 Act.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 13 OF 2009[Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.22272 of 2007]

M/S HIND PAINTS & CHEMICALS ... Appellant(s)

Versus

M/S ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD. ... Respondent(s)

ORDER

Leave granted.

In a Winding Up proceeding, it was alleged that the respondent company was

required to pay an amount of Rs.3,17,352/- to the appellant. It appears that on being

provisionally appointed the Official Liquidator went to the premises of the

respondent-company to take possession thereof. Thereafter, the respondent filed an

application before the Company Judge for recalling the order of appointment of the

Official Liquidator on the ground that the respondent-company had already paid the

principal amount and that only the question of interest remains to be decided. The

matter was heard by the Company Judge, who

-2-

also recorded the said fact and having regard to the provisions of the Delayed

Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, directed the respondent to pay to the appellant interest on the principal amount @ 9 per cent

per annum, with liberty to the appellant herein, to move the civil court in order to

establish its claim under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. An appeal was

preferred by the respondent herein before the Division Bench, which modified the

order of the learned Company Judge by withdrawing the leave granted to the

appellant to move the civil court for claiming higher interest.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the view

that the Division Bench committed an error in withdrawing the liberty which had

been granted by the learned Company Judge, to approach the civil court, having

particular regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act of 1993.

We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the Division Bench of

the High Court impugned herein by restoring the liberty which had been granted by

the learned Company Judge to the appellant to move the civil court for

-3-

higher interest. The appellant will be at liberty to move the civil court in terms of

the liberty granted by the Company Judge.

...................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR) ...................J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi, January 06, 2009.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free