RSA No. 3234 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3234 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.8.2011 ... M/s Singhania Industries and another ................Appellants vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Anish Jain, Advocate for the appellants ... K.C. Puri, J. This is an appeal directed by plaintiff-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2009 passed by Sh. Sumeet Malhotra, Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2005 passed by Sh. M.P.S. Pahwa, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, was upheld. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of ` 5,56,941/- on the ground that plaintiff-firm is registered under Small Scale Industries Unit under the Industries Department of Government of Bihar and are manufacturers of AAC/ACSR conductor of various sizes and supply the same to the defendants. Defendant No.1 is a corporate body and defendants No. 2 to 5 are its officers. The plaintiff firm RSA No. 3234 of 2010 -2- participated in tender vide its letters dated 8.7.1988 and 1.10.1988 invited by defendant No.1. The tender of plaintiffs was accepted and an order of acceptance through telegram and post confirmation letter dated 14.10.1988 and 21.10.1988 was sent for supply of 250 KM ACSR squirrel conductor ISI marked. The plaintiffs supplied 42.378 KM of conductors. Within stipulated period the remaining goods were not accepted by the defendants. As per cost variation the defendants are liable to pay for the remaining material of 254.992 KM @ ` 303.98 per KM and they are liable to refund the security of ` 7,390/-. They are also entitled to interest @ 21% per annum w.e.f. 21.2.1989 being the date of payment of the updated price to 23.9.1992 yearly compoundable and thereafter they are liable to pay interest @ 22.66% plus 5% per annum compounded monthly as per the delayed payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount? OPP 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? 3) Relief. Plaintiff in the trial Court, examined PW-1 Binay Kumar Singhania, PW-2 Kamta Prasad Singh, PW-3 Sarwan Kumar Singhania, PW-4 Bijoy Kumar Choudhary and PW-5 Mithlesh Kumar Singh and produced the documentary evidence. RSA No. 3234 of 2010 -3- In rebuttal, defendants examined DW-1 M.L. Goel and closed the evidence after tendering certain documents. Learned trial Court has taken issues No. 1 and 2 together. Issue No.1 was partly decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff- firm was held entitled to a sum of ` 52,285/- on account of price variation and ` 7,390/- as refund of security. Plaintiff-firm is also held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum on the principle amount. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and decree, the plaintiff-appellants have preferred the Ist Appeal. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 8.12.2009. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and decree dated 6.12.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala and judgment dated 8.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, the plaintiff-appellants have preferred the present regular second appeal. The plaintiff – appellants have framed the following question of law in the grounds of appeal:- (i)Whether appellant/plaintiff is entitled to @ ` 22.66% interest instead of 6% per annum as per the interest on delayed payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993? The only point urged before me is that in view of Section 4 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, the plaintiffs are entitled to RSA No. 3234 of 2010 -4- interest @ 22.66% per annum instead of 12% per annum till date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. In order to properly appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, relevant Section 4 is reproduced as under:- [4. Date from which and rate at which interest is payable.- Where any buyers fails to make payment of the amount to the amount to the supplier, as required under Section 3, the buyer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between the buyer and the supplier or in any law for the time being in force, be liable to pay interest to the supplier on that amount from the appointed day or, as the case may be, from the date immediately following the date agreed upon, at one-and-a half time of Prime Lending Rate charged by the State Bank of India. Explanation- For the purposes of this Section “Prime Lending Rate' means the Prime Lending Rate of the State Bank of India which is available to the best borrowers of the bank.”] From the bare perusal of the said Section, it is revealed that in case buyer fails to make payment on or before the date agreed to, in that case, buyer shall pay the interest at one-and-a-half time of Prime Lending rate charged by the State Bank of India. However, counsel for the appellants is fair enough to concede that there is no evidence on the file to prove the Prime Lending Rate of State Bank of India on the file. So, in these circumstances, the grant of interest in accordance RSA No. 3234 of 2010 -5- with CPC by the Courts below, cannot be interfered. So, in view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 1.8.2011 Judge chugh