Case: M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS(P) LTD.  Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD &amp; ORS

The facts and pleadings in other appeals shall also be briefly noticedC.A.Nos.8442-8443 of 2016 (M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Assam State Electricity Board & Ors.)2. The appellant is a Private Limited Company which has been registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit for manufacturing electrical conductors and/or wires at Kokrajhar, Assam.On 31.03.1992, the respondent-Assam State Electricity Boardplaced an order for supply of Aluminium Electrical Conductors from the appellants-M/s Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 1.22 crores. The supplies were to be made between June and December, 1992. On 13.05.1992, another order was placed by the Electricity Board to M/s Shanti Conductors for the supply of various types of conductors for a total consideration of Rs. 32.49 lacs. The supplies of the aforesaid goods were to be made between January and February, 1993. On 23.09.1992, the President of India promulgated an ordinance, namely, the Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, 1992. Subsequently, on 02.04.1993, the Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (in short theAct) was enacted and it was deemed to have come into force with effect from 23.09.1992. Meanwhile, the supply of equipments under the aforesaid purchase orders was completed by M/s Shanti Conductors on 04.10.1993. On 05.03.1994, the entire payment of Rs. 2.15 crores against the aforesaid supply orders was received by M/s Shanti Conductors3. On 10.01.1997, M/s. Shanti Conductors filed a suit for recovery of Rs.53.68 lakhs claiming interest on delayed payments. The Assam Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as theBoard) filed its written statement raising the plea of limitation and contending that the Act is not applicable to the case of the appellant as the contract was concluded prior to enactment of Act, 1993. The trial court decreed the suit on 02.02.2000 for recovery of the amount of Rs.51,60,507.42 with compound interest at the rate of 23.75% p.a. TheBoard filed the Regular First Appeal No.66 of 2000 before the High Court of Gauhati. The Division Bench of the High court while hearing the RFA being of the view that certain important issues arise for consideration, referred the matter to the Full Bench. The Full Bench framed following questions of law:i) Whether the suit for recovery of mere interest under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 is maintainable?ii) Whether in the present case the suit for recovery of Interest under the Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 would not be maintainable as the contract for supply of goods between the parties was entered into prior to enforcement of the Act, i.e. on 23.09.1992?iii) Whether the suit for recovery of interest under the Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 would not be maintainable if no reservation is made by the supplier retaining to it the right to recovery interest under the Act when the payment(s) of the principal sum is/are accepted, though these may be made beyond the prescribed period?4. The Full Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated 05.03.2002 answered the reference holding that a suit for interest could be filed. It further held that Act, 1993 is also applicable to contracts entered into prior to 23.09.1992.It held that interest under the Act would be calculated from 23.09.1992 till the payment is made to the supplier. The Board filed an appeal against the judgment of the Full Bench dated 05.03.2002 in this Court being C.A. NO.2351 of 2003 (Assam State Electricity Board and others vs. Shanti Conductors Private Limited and another). The appeal filed by the Board was heard along with another C.A.No.2348 of 2003( Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board and another). A two-Judge Bench of this Court decided both the appeals vide common judgment dated 10.07.2012 which judgment is reported in (2012) 7 SCC 462 (Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board and another). The two-Judge Bench relying on earlier judgments of this Court held that suit for recovery of interest alone under the Act, 1993 is maintainable. It further held that the Act, 1993 has no retrospective application. It further held that the supplier has an accrued right to claim a higher rate of interest in terms of the Act only with regard to sale agreements entered after the date of the commencement of the Act i.e. 23.09.1992. After judgment of this Court dated 10.07.2012 RFA No.66 of 2000 was decided by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 20.11.2012. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal of the Board. The Division Bench following judgment of this Court in Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited held that Act, 1993 would not apply to a contract entered prior to the enforcement of the Act, 1993. The contract between the parties being prior to the enforcement of the Act, the appeal filed by the Board was thus allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. A subsequent order dated 20.12.2012 was also passed by the Division Bench directing the refund of amount of Rs.38,03,381/-. Aggrieved by both the judgments dated 20.11.2012 and 20.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Civil Appeal Nos.8442-8443 of 2016 have been filed by the appellantsC.A.No.8445 of 2016 (M/s. Trusses and Towers (P) Ltd. V Assam State Electricity Board and Anr.)5. The Board placed two orders dated 17.02.1992 and 17.03.1992 with the appellant for supply of pre- stressed cement concrete poles. Written contract dated 10.06.1992 was entered between the parties. Poles were supplied by the appellant to the Board during the period 30.03.1992 to 30.09.1992. Payments were also made between 23.04.1993 to 08.10.1993. The appellant filed suit on 16.05.1994 against the Board seeking decree of Rs.16,55,623/- with interest towards the amount of delayed payment as per Act, 1993. The trial court vide its judgment dated 15.06.1995 decreed the suit. The Board filed Regular First Appeal against the judgment of the trial court. On 05.04.2001, the High Court allowed the Regular First Appeal filed by the Board. The High Court held that all the bills raised by the appellant were cleared by the Board prior to commencement of Act, 1993. Further, the appellant having received the principal amount could not sue for interest. There was nothing on record to indicate that the appellant has received the amount in question under protest. The appellant filed SLP(C)No.12217/2001 against the judgment of the High court dated 05.04.2001. By following order the SLP was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court:Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the special leave petition. He states that he will move the High Court in review stating that it has erred in recording that all the bills were paid and cleared earlier to the commencement of the Act. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn accordingly6. The appellant filed Review Application No.75 of 2001. The High Court vide its order dated 19.03.2013 partly allowed the review petition to the extent that the appellant was held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delayed paymentThe appellant aggrieved by the said judgment has filedC.A.No.8445 of 2016. C.A.No.8448 of 2016(Assam State Electricity Board and Anr. vs.Trusses and Towers (P) Ltd.)7. The above appeal has been filed by the Board against the order in Review Petition No.75 of 2001 filed by M/s. Trusses & Towers (P) Ltd. by which order the High Court has partly allowed the review petition to the extent that the appellant was held to be entitled tointerest at the rate of 9% p.a. as noted above. The Board aggrieved by the grant of interest of 9% p.a. has come up in this appealC.A.No.8450 of 2016(M/s. Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries vs. Assam State Electricity Board)8. The Board placed two supply orders dated 17.02.1992 & 17.03.1992 for pre-stressed cement concrete poles to the appellant. The payment to the tune of Rs.23,04,585.90 was withheld by the Board, principal amount, however, was started making payment with effect from 23.04.1993 and the whole sum was paid upto 18.12.1993. The appellant filed Money Suit No.32/1996 for recovery of sum of Rs.10,03,466.23 with interest. The Civil Judge has decreed the Suit No.32/1996 by order dated 30.09.2002 for an amount of Rs.5,46,233.14 with interest and costs. Board filed RFA No.78 of 2003 against the judgment of the trial court. The High Court vide judgment dated 12.02.2005 allowed the appeal filed by the Board and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. The High Court relied on the judgment of the Purbanchal Cables and Conductors (P) Ltd.held that there is no applicability of Act, 1993 with regard to transaction which took place prior to 23.09.1992. Against the judgment dated 12.02.1015. appeal NO.8448/2016 has been filed9. We have heard Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha, Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil and Shri Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. Shri Vijay Hansaris, learned senior counsel has appeared for Assam State Electricity Board10. All these appeals were heard by a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Arun Mishra. Both Honble Judges of the Bench delivered separate opinion dated 31.08.2016. In paragraph 28 of the judgment following questions of law have been noticed:i) Whether provisions of the Act are retroactive in nature?ii) Whether non consideration of this aspect of the matter renders the decisions of this Court in Modern Industries (supra) and Purbanchal Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as sub silentio?iii) Whether the judgment rendered in Purbanchal Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) operates as res judicata in the instant case?iv) Whether the suit filed by the appellants is barred by limitation?v) Whether the appeal against the review in the connected matter in Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.15274 of 2013 (M/s Trusses & Towers Pvt. Ltd.) is maintainable?11. Dealing with Sections 3, 4, 5 of Act,1993 following opinion was expressed by Justice Gowda:44.The Act was enacted in order to provide a boost to the small scale and ancillary industries, which were suffering as a result of irregular and delayed payments. A perusal of the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, the relevant portion of which has been extracted supra, makes it clear that the small scale industries were suffering as a result of lack of working capital, which was affecting the economic health of such industries. Prompt payment on the outstanding money, it was felt, that was the need of the hour. In this context, the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Act, assume significance. More so in light of the fact that in the definition clause of Section 2 of the Act, the legislature has not defined the words transaction or supply order. It chose to only give definition to the terms, inter alia, appointed day, buyer and supplier. Since the focus of the Act is on delayed payment, which is in consonance with the definition of the term appointed day as well, there is no need to consider when the transaction was entered into or the date of the supply order. Section 3 of the Act clearly provides that the liability of the buyer to make payment accrues after the supplier supplies goods or renders any services to the buyer. Thus, what was envisaged by the legislature as delayed payment was payment of the outstanding money due to the supplier after the goods had been supplied, and after the date agreed upon or the date of deemed acceptance. A bare reading of the Section makes it clear that the date of entering into the agreement or the date of supply order were not in contemplation of the legislature at all. Thus, it is amply clear from a bare reading of Section 3 that for the purpose of the Act, it does not matter when the contract was entered into, as long as the supply of the goods was after the Act came into force on 23.09.1992. It is in that sense that the question of retrospective application of the Act does not arise at all. This is further supported by the use of the non obstante clause in Section 4 of the. At the cost of repetition, Section 4 of the Act is extracted hereunder:4.Date from which and rate at which interest is payable.- Where any buyer fails to make payment of 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 half time of prime Lending Rate charged by the State Bank of IndiaThe use of the non obstante clause before the termagreement also makes it clear that once the money becomes due, which is after the supply of the goods and rendering services, the buyer is liable to pay the statutory interest on the delayed payment to the supplier no matter what is contained in the agreement between the buyer and the supplier46.Further, even on the issue of retrospectivity, what was required to be examined by this Court in the aforesaid cases was whether by reading the relevant statutory provisions Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, a vested statutory right is conferred. As I have already held that aforesaid provisions of the Act are retroactive in nature therefore, non- consideration of this aspect in Purbanchal Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and cases mentioned therein, renders the said judgment sub silentio on this question. The contention advanced by Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board in this regard cannot be accepted12. It was further observed that this Court in Purbanchal Cables and Conductors (P) Ltd.did not consider the important aspect of the matter as to whether provisions of the Act are retroative or not. Issue No.1 and 2 were answered in favour of the appellant. Other issues were also answered in favour of the appellant. In paragraphs 56and 57, the appeals were allowed by Justice Gowda in the following manner:56. For the reasons stated supra, I answer the points framed in these appeals in favour of the appellants as stated above. The appeals are accordingly allowed. All pending applications are disposed of57. In the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9924-9925 of 2013,vide order dated 17.02.2015, the appellants M/s Shanti Conductorswere directed to pay an amount of Rs.38,70,000/- back to the respondents. The respondents shall refund the amount to the appellants with 9% interest per annum within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order13. Another Honble Judge, Justice Arun Mishra who delivered separate opinion disagreed with the opinion of Justice Gowda. While disagreeing with the opinion of Justice Gowda following was held in paragraphs 77, 78, 79 and 80:77. In view of the aforesaid catena of decisions of this Court, it has to be held that the Act of 1993 cannot be said to be retrospective in operation or having retroactive operation. The question stands answered affirmatively beyond pale of doubt and the decisions are binding on a Co- ordinate Bench. It cannot be said that the decisions are sub silentio or per incuriam in any manner whatsoever and, in my opinion, it is not open to the Co-ordinate Bench to take a different opinion. There is no confusion with respect to meaning of transaction, supply order and agreement. This Court while deciding aforesaid cases was not in oblivion of aims and objects of beneficial legislation, considered same and it has Page 104 104 affirmatively pronounced on all the aspects. Hence, I find no scope to dwell further into the same arena to declare the various judgments to be sub silentio, per incuriam or not laying down the law correctly78. Even otherwise, on merits, in my opinion, considering the scheme of the Act, various provisions of the Act it cannot be said to have retrospective operation or retroactive operation and where a supply order has been placed before the date of commencement of the Act, that is before 23.9.1992, the beneficial provisions of the Act regarding higher interest would not be applicable79. In the case of appellant M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. itself decided along with Purbanchal Cables (supra) aforesaid findings have been recorded by this Court while remanding the case to the High Court for decision on merits as an appeal arising of same lis was pending before the High Court and the High Court has rightly followed the decisions in Purbanchal Cables & Conductors (supra) decided along with M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. The finding recorded by this Court in the remand order is final and binding on the appellant- M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. They cannot question the same again in the instant appeals. Page 105 10580. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals have no merit and the same deserve dismissal and are hereby dismissed. No costs14. In view of the divergent opinion expressed by learned Judges consisting the Bench the matter has been placed before this three-Judge Bench.

Court's reasoning:
51. The judgment of this Court in Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Pvt. Ltdrelying onAssam Small Scale Industries and Shakti Tubeshad laid down that Act, 1993 cannot be made applicable with regard to sale agreements which were entered into prior to the enforcement of the Act and Act can be invoked only for the sale agreements which were entered after the enforcement of the Act. Although attempt was made in Purbanachal Cables to get judgment in Assam Small Scale Industries and Shakti Tubesreconsidered but co- ordinate Bench inPurbanchal Cableshas refused to permit any such reconsideration. The matter now having been referred to this three-Judge Bench we have to consider and answer as to whether the above interpretation of Act, 1993 as given is in consonance with the statutory scheme52. We have noticed above that theincidence of applicability of the liability under the Act is supply of goods or rendering of service. In event the supply of goods and rendering of services is subsequent to Act, can liability to pay interest on delayed payment be denied on the ground that agreement in pursuance of which supplies were made were entered prior to enforcement of the Act? Entering into an agreement being not expressly or impliedly referred to in the statutory scheme as an incident for fastening of the liability, making the date of agreement as date for imposition of liability does not conform to the statutoryscheme. This can be illustrated by taking an example. There are two small scale industries who received orders for supply of materials. A received such orders prior to the enforcement of the Act and B received the order after the enforcement of the Act. Both supplied the goods subsequent to enforcement of the Act and became entitled to receive payment after the supply, on or before the day agreed upon between the supplier and buyer or before the appointed day. Payments were not made both to A and B as required by Section 3. Can the buyer who has received supplies from supplier A escape from his statutory liability to make payment of interest under Section 3 read with Section 4 ? The answer has to be No. Two suppliers who supply goods after the enforcement of the Act, become entitled to receive payment after the enforcement of the Act one supplier cannot be denied the benefit of the statutory protection on the pretext that agreement in his case was entered prior to enforcement of the Act. When the date of agreement is not referred as material or incidence for fastening the liability, by no judicial interpretation the said date can be treated as a date for fastening of the liability. The Act, 1993 being beneficial legislation enacted to protect small scale industries and statutorily ensure by mandatory provision for payment of interest on the outstanding money, accepting the interpretation as put by learned counsel for the Board that the day of agreement has to be subsequent to the enforcement of the Act, the entire beneficial protection of the Act shall be defeated. The existence of statutory liability depends on the statutory factors as enumerated in Section 3 and Section4 of the Act, 1993. Factor for liability to make payment under Section 3 being the supplier supplies any goods or renders services to the buyer, the liability of buyer cannot be denied on the ground that agreement entered between the parties for supply was prior to Act, 1993. To hold that liability of buyer for payment shall arise only when agreement for supply was entered subsequent to enforcement of the Act, it shall be adding words to Section 3 which is not permissible under principles of statutory construction. We, thus, are of the view that judgments in Purbanchal Cables and Conductors (supra),Assam Small Scale Industries and Shakti Tubes which held that Act, 1993 shall be applicable only when the agreement to sale/contract was entered prior/subsequent to the enforcement of the Act, does not lay down the correct law. We accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that even if agreement of sale is entered prior to enforcement of the Act, liability to make payment under Section 3 and liability to make payment of interest under Section 4 shall arise if supplies are made subsequent to the enforcement of the Act53. In all the judgments of this Court referred above, it has been held that Act, 1993 is not retrospective. It is not even contended before us by any of the parties that the Act, 1993 is retrospective in operation. Judgments of this Court as noticed above rightly hold that Act, 1993 is not retrospective54. The opinion of Justice Gowda dated 31.08.2016 although holds that Act is not retrospective but he holds the Act retroactive57. Retroactivity in the context of the statute consists application of new rule of law to an Act or transaction which has been completed before the Rule was promulgated58. In the present case the liability of buyer to make payment and day from which payment and interest become payable under Section 3 and 4 does not relate on any event which took place prior to Act, 1993, it is not even necessary for us to say that Act, 1993 is retroactive in operation. The Act, 1993 is clearly prospective in operation and it is not necessary to term it as retroactive in operation. We, thus, do not subscribe to the opinion dated 31.08.2016 of one of the Honble Judges holding that the Act, 1993 as retroactiveWhether money suit no.21 of 1997 filed by appellant is barred by time is one of the issues which has been raised before us59. From the pleadings on the record it transpires that two supply orders dated 31.03.1992 and 13.05.1992 was issued to the appellant for supply of conductors. In the Plaint, the appellant had given the details of date of supply orders and date when supply was made on different stores. The supplies made by the appellant were both before enforcement of the Act i.e. 23.09.1992 and after the enforcement of the Act60. In view of the discussions as made above only the supplies received after 23.09.1992 are relevant for purposes of 1993 Act. As per pleadings on the record entire supplies by the appellant was completed on 04.10.1993. Details of the payment has also been given in the plaint which indicate that last payment dated 05.03.1994 was received.Paragraph 24 of the plaint gives the details of cause of action for the suit which states that cause of action for the suit arose on 31.03.1992 and thereafter on different date last date being mentioned in paragraph 24 was 05.10.1993 and each date subsequent thereafter.62. The Trial Court held that by virtue of Section 10 of Act, 1993 plea of limitation is taken away and the suit is not barred by the limitation. The Division Bench of the High Court in RFA No. 66 of 2000 filed by the defendant had made a reference to the full bench. Full Bench in its order dated 05.03.2002 has not considered or decided the question of limitation63. Against the judgment dated 05.03.2002 of Full Bench of High Court answering the reference, the Assam State Electricity Board had filed appeal in this court being Civil Appeal No. 2351 of 2003. This Court decided Civil Appeal No.2351 of 2003 along with Civil Appeal No. 2348 of 2003 on 10.07.2002 which judgment isPurbanchal Cables and Conductors (P) Ltd. (Supra). This Court in paragraph 31 has noticed the submission of learned Counsel for the State Electricity Board that suits filed by both the suppliers were barred by time but this Court did not express any opinion.64. After the judgment of this Court dated 10.07.2012 when the matters went back to the High Court, Division Bench decided the RFA 66 of 2000 by impugned judgment dated 20.11.2012. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has noticed the issues in paragraph 5 of the judgment and submissions on the limitations.65. It is thus clear that the Division Bench although noticed the submissions of both the parties on the question as to whether the suit was barred by limitation or not but Division Bench allowed the appeal on the ground that supply orders having been issued prior to enforcement of the Act. Act 1993 is not applicable. The Division Bench did not return any finding as to whether the suit was barred by the limitation or not. The submission that suit has barred by limitation has been pressed before us68. Plaintiff themselves in the plaint as noted above has pleaded that limitation will not apply by virtue of Section 10 which submission was accepted by the Trial Court. The provision of Section 10 of 1993 Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of Act notwithstanding anything inconsistent herewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The overriding effect was given to the provisions of the Act which were contained in the Act. Section 10 provided that overriding effect is given to the provisions of the Act over any inconsistent law for the time being in force. It simply meant that if there is anything inconsistent in any other law to the provisions of the Act, the provisions of the Act shall prevail and override any inconsistent law. For example, when Section 4 requires payment of interest at particular rate on delayed payment the said rate shall have overriding effect to rate of interest provided in any other law69. Further, as per Section 7 no appeal can be filed against the decree or other order passed regarding recovery of amount due without depositing 75 % of the amount. Thus in a suit if a decree is passed on amount due of interest appeal has to be entertained after depositing 75% or as per any other order passed by the Court. Normal right of appeal shall be overridden by virtue of Section 7 of 1993 Act. The Trial Court fell in error in reading overriding effect given in Section 10 to the Limitation Act also. There is no provision in 1993 Act pertaining to limitation, the provision of Limitation Act pertaining to filing suit shall continue to operate there being nothing contrary or overriding under 1993 Act. Section 10 will operate only with regard to expressed provisions contained in 1993 Act which shall be given overriding effect but reading Section 10 to the effect that it shall override Limitation Act is not correct interpretation of Section 10 and Trial Court fell in errorin relying on Section 10in holding that Limitation Act will not apply70. We thus are of the view that Limitation Act, 1963 is fully applicable with regard to money suit filed by the appellant hence, the question of limitation has to be answered as per Limitation Act 1963.74. Article 113 as noted above provides fortime from which period begins as when the right to sue accrues. 1993 Act Section 4 creates statutory liability to pay interest from the day as mentioned in Section 4 the liability to pay is fastened on buyer. The amount become due as soon as liability to pay arises. Section 6 also uses the wordamount due from buyer. The amount due is amount which is liable to be paid by buyer under Section 4. Thus the fact that last payment was made on 05.03.1994 cannot be treated as period for beginning of the limitation and on that ground it cannot be held that suit was within time75. Shri Sinha had made an alternative submission that plaintiff was entitled for the benefit under section 14 of limitation Act. Since a W.P.No. giving rise to Civil Rule No.1531 of 1993 on behalf of five main members of the Associations i.e. Assam Conductors Manufacture Association was filed in the High Court which on 06.09.1994 directed the petitioner to move to Civil Court for realization of the dues of its member, hence the period during which the writ was pending has to be given benefit. According to pleading in paragraph 24, the Writ Petition was filed by Assam Conductors Manufacture Association. M/s Shanti Conductor(P) Ltd. and another, is a different entity than the Association76. We thus are of the view that benefit of the Section 14 cannot be claimed by the plaintiff in the facts of the present case.We, thus in view of the foregoing discussioncome to the conclusion that suit filed by the plaintiff being Money Suit No. 21 of 1997 was barred by time77. While deciding Issue No.3 we having held that Money Suit filed by the appellant was barred by time, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the above issue78. The question as to whether suit filed only for interest is maintainable has been considered in detail by this Court.79. Section 6 of the 1993 Act provides thatthe amount due from the buyer, together with amount of interest calculated in accordance with provision of Section 4 and 5 shall be recoverable ……. Section 6 uses the expressiontogether with the amount of interest with the amount due from the buyer. The interpretation put by learned counsel for the Board is that proceeding for recovery of interest can be undertaken only when any amount is due. He submits that amount due used in Section 6 is Principal amount. In event we accept the interpretation put by counsel for the Board, then buyer will very easily get away from payment of interest only after making payment of Principal amount. This interpretation shall defeat very purposes of 1993 Act. It is well settled that provisions of Act has to be interpreted in the manner so as to advance the object of the Act. We thus fully approve the view taken by this Court in Purbanchal Cables (Supra) that suit by supplier for recovery of only interest is maintainable80. The submission of the counsel to the board is that since against the judgment of Gauhati High Court dated 15.04.2001, S.L.P. No.12217 of 2001 filed by M/s Trusses & Towers was withdrawn without obtaining the liberty, Civil Appeal No. 8445 of 2016 is not maintainable challenging the Review Order and judgment dated 19.03.2003.In the Order passed by this Court on 06.08.2001, this Court had noticed the submission of the appellant that appellant shall move the High Court in review stating that it has committed error in recording thatall the bills were paid earlier to the commencement of this act. In the Review Petition, the review has been partly allowed by allowing interest @ 9% against which the appeal has been filed. A perusal of the Review judgment indicates that High Court has not returned any finding that all the bills were not paid earlier to the commencement of the Act81. A perusal of Division Bench judgment of High Court indicates that High Court proceed on the presumption that even if 1993 Act is not applicable the entitlement of the plaintiff could be considered in equity. When the liberty to file review was obtained on the ground as noticed in the Order the review judgment can be questioned on the ground on which review was permitted82. The Division Bench judgment does not indicate that it proceeds on the ground as contended by the appellant and noticed by this Court on 06.08.2001. The interest of 9% was allowed on the premise that 1993 Act is not applicable and said interest is allowed on equity relying on an earlier judgment on this court in Assam Small Scale Industry Development Corporation and others versus G.D. Pharmaceuticals and others, 2005(13) SCC19.We thus are of the view that present appeal challenging the review judgmentcannot be entertained. The ground on which the appellant can challenge the review judgment can be the ground on which liberty was obtained to file review. We thus hold that Civil Appeal No. 8445 of 2016 is not maintainableWhether the High court while considering the Review Petition No.75 of 2001 (M/s Trusses & Towers Pvt. Ltd.) even after expressing that Act 1993 is not applicable could have allowed 9% interest to the plaintiff?83. The High Court in its judgment dated 19.03.2013 allowed interest @ 9% per annum for the period of delayed payment. Even if Act 1993 is not applicable, the Court can very well exercise its jurisdiction to award interest. InAssam Small Scale Industry Development Corporation and others versus G.D. pharmaceuticals and others(Supra),this Court in paragraph 40 while considering the claim of the respondent in a suit filed for recovery of interest under 1993 Act has allowed 9% interest with respect to the transaction made prior to coming into force of the 1993 Act.84. High Court did not commit any error in awarding 9% interest to plaintiff respondent. We thus did not find any error in the judgment dated 19.03.2013 allowing partly the review application filed by the plaintiffCivil Appeal No. 8450 of 201685. Now, we come toCivil Appeal No. 8450 ofe appellant has filed Money Suit No. 32 of 1996 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,34,065.23 p. and Rs. 23,738.49 p. being the outstanding against the bills for supply made and amount of security deposited and amount of Rs.10,10,326.74 p. being the amount of delayed interest.The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide its judgment and order dated 30.09.2002 for recovery of Rs. 5,46,233.14 p.as on 18.12.93 from the date of enforcement of the Act, 1993 and future interest on the decretal amount @ 6% simple interest per annum with effect from 19.12.1993.Appeal was filed by the respondent in the High Court beingRFA No. 78 of2003, whichhasbeen allowed on 12.02.2015 setting aside the decree for recovery of the amount and interest but maintaining the claim of refund of security deposit to the tune of Rs. 23,738.49 with 9% interest.The High Court following the judgment of this Court inPurbanchal Cables and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that with regard to transaction, which had taken place prior to 23.09.1992, the 1993 Act is not applicable.The appellants have appealed against the judgment of High Court dated 20.02.2015. The pleading on the record does not indicate that any supply was made by the appellant subsequent to enforcement of the 1993 Act. We have already held that the mere fact that supply orders were issued prior to enforcement of the Act does not deny the applicability of the 1993 Act, in event, supply has been made after the enforcement of the Act.