tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post2162307892458741273..comments2023-12-23T18:42:30.780+05:30Comments on Practical Academic: Retrospective Operation of Interest on Delayed Payments ActBadrinath Srinivasanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11123853000962107353noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-38570325763246660762019-03-21T19:03:39.714+05:302019-03-21T19:03:39.714+05:30Sir,
I entered in to contract for supply in 2005, ...Sir,<br />I entered in to contract for supply in 2005, but payment continued to be released by the purchaser beyond 2-10-2006 and still remains to be paid.<br /><br /> Submission of the Buyer that order was placed and executed before 02-10-2006, Act of 2006 is not applicable as it cannot have retrospective application.<br />Council accepted his argument and dismissed. my claim.<br />Distt. court refused to interfere with the award.<br /><br />Now appealed in High court, can u update with any judgment on similar case<br /><br />Narender Luthra - 9810059555<br /><br />Narenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14877262321733487513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-30384449497836945862016-09-14T10:32:54.744+05:302016-09-14T10:32:54.744+05:30Hi ,
Mr singh,
You have to tell us when was the c...Hi ,<br />Mr singh,<br /><br />You have to tell us when was the case filed before 2006 came into force or after. if it is after then the submission made by the opposite party is of before the District judge is of no use. Since i don't know what is pending before the District Judge.<br /><br />If a section 34 of Arbitration act 1996 has been filed challenging the award by the Respondent then one has to see that if such plea has been taken by them before the council. if not they cannot take fresh grounds under 34.<br /><br />Secondly such ground taken by them is not tenable under law. <br />further comment can be given on full details of the case.<br /><br />Regards<br />Saurendra Rautray<br />Rautray& Co<br />New delhi<br />www.rautray.com<br />09437008255saurendrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01231607840646252744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-45752164480055391902015-07-17T13:45:17.129+05:302015-07-17T13:45:17.129+05:30Wish to share your expertise on an ongoing matter....Wish to share your expertise on an ongoing matter.<br /><br />I supplied good to Indian Army in 2005. By March 2006 part payment was made. Last year I approached the Facilitation council under the MSMED Act, which in turn appointed an Arbitrator. Arbitrator awarded the decision in our favour in March 2015.<br /><br />Till date the payment has not been made and then I approached the local district courts. The opposite party counsel argues that the Act does not have a retrospective effect. I argue that the opposite party's case cannot be entertained. <br /><br />Now the judge has given us the date of 14.08.2015 for filing reply and arguments to decide the matter.<br /><br />Please suggest or provide some inputs.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Arun Singh<br />arunsingh911@gmail.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17968482552169008554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-87889927185719324132014-01-23T20:44:00.292+05:302014-01-23T20:44:00.292+05:30Modern Industries Vs Sail judgement covers the que...Modern Industries Vs Sail judgement covers the question. Novation was considered. Bhavana Uppalurihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891839552087800654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-7203829674832009232013-01-29T19:28:48.161+05:302013-01-29T19:28:48.161+05:30Will the act apply for supplies made on order plac...Will the act apply for supplies made on order placed before the act came in force but order was amended / extended/modified after the Act came in force . dcchaudhry@gmail.comUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04470521984407494100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-40397980683108684882013-01-29T19:25:31.574+05:302013-01-29T19:25:31.574+05:30Your article is interesting. There still seems to ...Your article is interesting. There still seems to be a controversy to my understanding.Suppose the order date is prior to the act coming in force , but has been extended and supplies have been made after the Act came in force , and payment has been delayed . Will then the SSI unit be entitled to higher rate of interest ? See Modern Industries judgement . The SSI units take loan from Bankers at monthly compound interest , as interest is debited by the bank monthly.The Act only tries to compensate the loss made by SSI units. In such an event , i fail to understand why contracts entered into prior to coming of the Act will not get the benifit , if cause of action i.e. delayed payments are made for supplies made after the Act came in force. Please , can you elaborate and give your views . dcchaudhry@gmail.comUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04470521984407494100noreply@blogger.com