M/S Hind Paints & Chemicals vs M/S Accurate Transformers Ltd
- CitationAIRONLINE 2009 SC 415
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
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