Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

a deductible expenditure under section 23.

4. Before we proceed, we must outline the broad contours of the case to gain a better perspective of the issues at hand.

5. Driplex registered itself as a small-scale industrial unit, albeit with the Department of Industries, Haryana, as far back as on 08.05.1981. 5.1 With the advent of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 [hereafter referred to as the "1993 Act"], on 07.12.2000, Driplex registered itself as a small-scale enterprise with the District Industries Centre, Gautam Budh Nagar (UP). 5.2 On 08.07.2009, MRPL invited bids for supply and services, which comprised, amongst other things, design, engineering, supply, civil works, erection, testing, etcetera, of DM water and CPU plant package for its Phase-III Refinery Project. Since the bid submitted by Driplex was the lowest, MRPL accepted it. Accordingly, on 01.12.2009, a Letter of Acceptance [hereafter referred to as "LoA"] was issued in favour of Driplex by MRPL. As per the LoA, the contract was priced at Rs.51 crores. Driplex submitted its acceptance of the offer made by MRPL.

5.3 The LoA accorded eighteen (18) months to Driplex to complete the awarded work. However, 1st two "trains" of the DM Plant were to be commissioned within sixteen (16) months, commencing from the date of issuance of the LoA, i.e., 01.12.2009. Therefore, the commissioning of the 1st two trains of DM Plant was to be completed by 31.03.2011, and the entire plant was to be set up and commissioned on or before 31.05.2011. The record discloses that Driplex was able to complete the awarded work on 11.03.2013, after which MRPL issued it a completion certificate. 5.4 Driplex, thus, submitted a final bill. Concededly, MRPL withheld certain amounts. The record also discloses, as indicated above, that Driplex submitted an NOC to MRPL on 25.09.2013. Therefore, while according to MRPL, nothing was due and payable to Driplex once it submitted an NOC, Driplex contended to the contrary. The stand taken by Driplex was that the NOC was conditional, and, therefore, the amounts which, according to it, were due and payable would not stand foreclosed with the submission of the NOC. It is in this background that Driplex, on 09.07.2014, preferred an application under Section 18 of the 2006 Act6 with the Council for adjudication of its unpaid claims by taking recourse to the arbitration mechanism provided under the said provision.

23. Driplex had succeeded in similar facts and circumstances in a writ action filed by Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC). In that case, the contract between Driplex and NLC was executed on 25.09.2006. Since registration of Driplex under Section 8 occurred on 09.12.2011, the reference made by the Council under Section 18 of the 2006 Act was challenged by NLC via WP (C.) 9670/2016. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 02.09.2019. The appeal, i.e., LPA 688/2019, titled Chief General Manager (Contracts) Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Driplex Water Engineering Ltd. and Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 2228 preferred by NLC was dismissed by a coordinate bench of this court via judgment dated 29.01.2020. The Special Leave Petition, i.e. SLP (C) No.9268/2020, preferred against the Division Bench judgement, was dismissed by a three-

30. This apart, as correctly submitted by Mr Rai, the three (03) Supreme Court judgments relied upon by Mr Jain are distinguishable on facts. Both in Silpi and Nitesh Estates, the supply of goods/services rendered was concluded before registration under Section 8 of the 2006 Act. 30.1 In the instant matter, MRPL and Driplex entered into an agreement on 01.12.2009. Driplex submitted a memorandum to register itself as a small enterprise under the 2006 Act on 09.12.2011. Concededly, Driplex completed its work and obtained a certificate from MRPL after registration under Section 8 of the 2006 Act i.e., only on 11.03.2013. Since Driplex had been awarded a turnkey contract, the work, quite naturally, would have continued even after it filed a memorandum i.e., obtained registration under the 2006 Act.