SNEHADEEP STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED versus MAHARASHTRA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 05-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 76 
A 
SNEHADEEP STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED 
B 
v. 
MAHARASHTRA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES 
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2010) 
JANUARY 5, 2010 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and 
C Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993 - s. 7 - Expression 'appeal' 
under - Scope of - Held: Word 'appeal' u/s 7 includes an 
application uls 34 of Arbitration Act in view of language of s. 7, 
object of legislation and contextual meaning of the term 
'appeal' - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.34 -
D Interpretation of Statutes. 
Interpretation of Statutes - In case of doubt about 
meaning of a word in a statute, the interpretation which 
harmonizes the object and purpose of the statute should be 
E adopted. 
Words and Phrases - 'Appeal' - Meaning of, in the 
context of s. 7 of Interest on Delayed payment to Small Scale 
and Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993. 
F 
The question for consideration before this Court was 
whether the expression 'appeal' occurring uls. 7 of 
Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and 
Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993, whether would include 
an application uls. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 
G Act, 1996. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. "Appeal" is a term that carries a wide range 
of connotations with it and that appellate jurisdiction can 
H 
76 
SNEHADEEP STRUCTURES PRIVATE LTD. v. MAHARASHTRA 
77 
SMALL SCALE INDUS. DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. · 
be exercised in a variety of forms. It is not necessary that A 
the exercise of appellate jurisdiction will always involve 
re-agitation of entire matrix of facts and law. It is not 
correct to say that appeal shall mean only a challenge to 
a decree or order where the entire matrix of law and fact 
can be re-agitated with respect to the impugned order/ B 
decree. [Para 32] [95-G-H; 96-A-C] 
Nagendra Nath v. Suresh Chandra AIR 1932 PC 165; 
Raja Kulkarni v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SCR 384; Mela 
Ram v. CIT AIR 1956 SC 367; S.R.Abhayankar v. K.D. Bapat 
(1969) 2 SCC 74; Tirupati Balaji v. State of Bihar (2004) 5 C 
sec 1, relied on. 
Gramophone Company of India vs. Birendra Bahadur 
Pandey and Ors. (1984) 2 SCC 534; Central Bank of India 
v. State of Kera/a 2009 (3) SCR 735; Santa Singh v. State D 
of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190; State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai 
Abudul Gaffar Shaikh and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 50; Promotho 
Nath Roy v. WA. Lee AIR 1921 Cal 415, referred to. 
2.1. Keeping in mind the language of Section 7, E 
object of the legislation and the contextual meaning of 
the term appeal, the term "appeal" appearing in Section 
7 ?f the Interest Act should include an application u/s 34 
as well. [Para 58] [108-8-C] 
State of Kera/a v. MK. Krishnan Nair 1978 1 SCC 552, 
F 
referred to. 
2.2. Section 34 envisages only limited grounds of 
challenge to an award; however, that alone will not take 
out an application u/s 34 outside the ambit of an appeal G 
especially when even a power of revision is treated as 
an exercise of appellate jurisdiction. [Para 32] [96-C-D) 
2.3. So far as interest on delayed payment to Small 
Scale Industries as well as connected matters are 
H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 1 S.C.R. 
A concerned, the Act is a special legislation with respect to 
any other legislation, including the Arbitration Act. 
Therefore, it is not correct to say that the matter of interest 
payment will be governed by Section 37(1) of the 
Arbitration Act. Section 4 of the Interest Act endorses the 
8 
same which sets out the liability of the buyer to pay 
interest to the supplier 'notwithstanding anything 
contained in any agreement between the buyer and the 
supplier or in any law for the time being in force.' Thus, 
Interest Act is a special legislation as far as the liability 
C to pay interest, or to make a deposit thereof, while 
challenging an award/decree/order granting interest. 
[Para 34) (96-H; 97-A-C] 
D 
Jay Engineering Works v. Industry Facilitation Council 
and Anr. 2006 (8) sec 677, referred to. 
2.4. Section 6(1) of Interest Act empowers the buyer 
to obtain the due payment by way of any proceedings. 
Thus the proceedings that the buyer can resort to, no 
doubt, includes arbitration as well. As opposed to 
E Section 6(2), Section 6(1) does not state that in case the 
parties choose to resort to arbitration, the proceedings 
in pursuance thereof will be governed by Arbitration Act. 
Hence, the right context in which the meaning of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.