Orissa High Court
Ms Blessings Private Ltd vs Chairman Micro Small Enterprises ... on 24 April, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 (NOC) 734 (ORI.)
Author: Vineet Saran
Bench: Vineet Saran
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21336 of 2011
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India
AFR
-------------
M/s. Blessings Private Ltd. ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Chairman, Micro Small Enterprises
Facilitation Council and Commissioner-cum-
Director of Industries, Odisha and another
... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Asim Amitav Das,
M. Ray, A.K. Behera, B.K. Parida,
S. Mohanty, B. Sahu & R. Biswal.
For Opp. Parties : M/s. Malay Kumar Das, S.K. Das,
& S. Mohanty.
---------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decided on : 24.04.2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Vineet Saran, CJ. The admitted case of the parties is that
the petitioner is a small scale industry of the State of
Odisha and is a manufacturer of Auto Tubes and
Flaps for all types of vehicles. It is also admitted case
of the parties that the petitioner had supplied Heavy
Duty Flaps to opposite party no.2-Executive
Engineer, Stores & Mechanical Division, Khatiguda,
Nabarangpur on 15.10.1986 and raised invoice on
the same day for an amount of Rs.13,476.05 paisa.
There is no dispute with regard to the quantity and
quality of the supplies made by the petitioner, yet the
payment was not made to the petitioner for two
decades.
2. Admittedly, the payment for the said
supply was made by opposite party no.2 after twenty
years on 08.12.2006. The petitioner raised a claim for
payment of interest for delayed payment and filed a
MSEFC Case No.25/2010 before opposite party no.1-
Director of Industries, Odisha. The said claim of the
3
petitioner was rejected only on technical ground of
approaching the authority after twenty-four years as,
according to opposite party no.1, the supply was
made in the year 1986 and the claim was filed in
2010.
3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that
the petitioner was required to submit the Sales Tax
Clearance Certificate (STCC) and Income Tax
Clearance Certificate (ITCC), which were not enclosed
along with the bills, and it was only in the year 1993
that such certificates were furnished by the petitioner
and because of non-furnishing of such documents,
the payment to the petitioner was delayed. It was also
stated that there was bifurcation of the Irrigation and
Power Department because of which the bills
submitted by the petitioner could not be traced out
for a long period and, hence, the delay in payment.
4. It is noteworthy that in the counter
affidavit, it is not stated as to when the bifurcation of
4
the department had taken place because of which
there was delay from 1993 till 2006. No document
has also been filed asking for the STCC and ITCC
from the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that though the amount involved is merely
Rs.13,000/- and odd, but the matter is of principle,
and the question may be settled as to whether the
petitioner would be entitled to any interest for
delayed payment in the aforesaid admitted facts of
the case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and having gone through the record, we are of
the opinion that the delay in payment to the
petitioner is clearly attributable to opposite party
no.2. No explanation whatsoever has been given for
not making such payment even in the year 1993 i.e.
immediately after the STCC and ITCC were provided
by the petitioner. In the absence of the opposite party
5
having not been able to show that the said papers
were ever demanded from the petitioner prior to
1993, and the delay in payment from 1986 to 1993
has also not been well-explained, though may be
accepted to some extent, there is no valid explanation
for not making the payment immediately in the year
1993 and having kept the matter pending for the
next thirteen years, as admittedly the payment was
made only on 22.12.2006.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and
keeping in view that the petitioner is contesting this
petition only on principle so that the issue may be
settled that in such circumstances, whether a party
would be entitled to payment of interest for delayed
payment or not, and also keeping in view that the
amount involved is not very huge, we hold that the
petitioner would be entitled to payment of interest
and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay a
consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty-
6
five thousand) to the petitioner towards interest for
delayed payment for the supply made by the
petitioner in the year 1986. Such amount be paid to
the petitioner within a period of three months from
the date of production of certified copy of this order
before opposite party no.2, failing which the
petitioner would be entitled to 12% interest per
annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- from
08.12.2006till the payment is made.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
................................ ( VINEET SARAN ) CHIEF JUSTICE .................................. ( K.R. MOHAPATRA ) JUDGE The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 24th April, 2017/PCP/SKJ