RSA No.58/2011 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 07.04.2011 + RSA No. 58/2011 & CM Nos. 6788-89/2011 SHRI P.K. GARG ………..Appellant Through: Mr.Hariom Yaduvanshi & Ms. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocates. Versus SHRI S.K. DUTTA & ANR. ……….Respondents. Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2010 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 03.01.2009 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff had been decreed in the sum of `2,25,051/- (-) minus `57,000/- equal to `1,68,051/- with pendent lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. 2 This is a second appeal. The appellant before this Court is the plaintiff. His contention is that he is a small scale industry and benefit of provisions of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 has been denied to the plaintiff. He was admittedly a small scale industry and he was entitled to interest on delayed payment which was RSA No.58/2011 Page 2 of 3 admittedly delayed. 3 The appeal is yet at the admission stage. The case of the plaintiff as is evident from the pleadings is that the defendants had approached the plaintiff for supply of Blue Line Servo Voltage Stabilizers; an order for supply of two stabilizers was placed upon the plaintiff valued `1,08,000/- each. Stabilizers were dispatched to Jagadhari and were liable to be inspected by RITES. The defendants raised a bill of `2,35,872/-. The plaintiff had successfully commissioned both the stabilizers at Jagadhari workshop. The defendants had only made part payment of `50,000/-; balance of `1,35,872/- was due; another amount of `13,608/- had been claimed on account of non-supply of ‘C’ forms; `2,200/- as cost of notice and interest had been claimed @ 18% per annum making a total suit amount of `1,25,051/-. 4 Contention before this Court is only that the plaintiff being a small scale industry could not have been denied the benefit of this legislation. It is contended that the suit of the plaintiff had been decreed meaning thereby that it was a delayed payment which was made by the defendants. 5 Pleadings have been perused. The plaint nowhere whispers or states a word that the plaintiff is a small scale industry or undertaking. This has also been admitted by learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that although there is no such specific averment yet it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a small scale industry. From where this can be gathered is not explained. 6 Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 is a legislation which was enacted in the year 1993. The Statement of Objects and Reasons RSA No.58/2011 Page 3 of 3 states that it is a policy statement on small scale industries made by the Government; this legislation had been brought to ensure prompt payment of money by buyers to the small industrial units. 7 The plaintiff not having said a word that he is a small scale industrial unit, the question of applicability of this Act does not arise. No substantial question of law has arisen. There is no merit in this appeal. Appeal as also pending applications dismissed in limine. INDERMEET KAUR, J. APRIL 07, 2011 a