Judgment D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted. 2. These are judgment-debtor’s two appeals against common judgment dated December 24, 1997 of the Madras High Court, passed in revision of the order of the executing court dismissing execution applications filed by the respondent decree-holders. The decrees are for specific performance of two agreements of sale of certain immovable properties. 3. The appellant, as owner of the pro­perty being two plots of land, each measuring 60 x 40 , entered into two separate but similar agree­ments of sale dated February 16, 1980 with the respondent decree-holders. Since the judgment-debtor failed to perform his part of the agree­ments, decree-holders filed suits for specific performance of the contract of sale in the court of the District Munsif, Pudukottai. The suits were decreed in favour of the respondents with a direction to them to deposit the balance amount of consideration and with further direction to the appellant to execute the sale-deeds. The suits were decreed on January 31, 1983 and the balance consideration amount was to be deposited on or before March 31, 1983. Against the judgment and order decreeing the suits the appellant filed appeals in the High Court which were dismissed on February 28, 1985. High Court while dismissing the appeals of the judgment-debtor did not grant any exten­sion of time to the respondents for deposit of the balance amount of consideration. 4. The respondent decree-holders filed applications for execution of the decrees of specific performance of contract after five years of the decrees by the trial court and three years after dismissal of the appeals by the High Court. One of the contentions raised by the appel­lant judgment-debtor was that the respondent decree-holders had failed to deposit the balance amount of consideration in terms of the de­crees. In one case the balance consideration amount was deposited much after the period granted in the decree and in the other case no amount of the balance consideration was at all deposited. 5. The executing court by order dated September 2, 1984 dismissed the execution applications of the respondent decree-holders holding that they did not pay the amount of balance consideration within the time stipulated under the decrees. 6. Against this order two revisions were filed in the High Court by the respondent decree-holders. It was not disputed that there was delay in complying with the terms of the decrees which were condition­al. 6. Against this order two revisions were filed in the High Court by the respondent decree-holders. It was not disputed that there was delay in complying with the terms of the decrees which were condition­al. In the course of proceedings before the High Court respondent decree-holders filed separate applications seeking extension of time granted under the decrees by the trial Court to deposit the amount. When the appellant judgment-debtor objected to the filing of the application on the ground that these could not be maintained in the High Court and no such application was filed in the trial Court, the High Court remitted the matter to the executing court with a direction to treat the applications as interlocutory applications in the execu­tion proceedings and to dispose them of in accordance with law. At the same time High Court also said that in view of the decision of this Court in Sardar Mohar Singh through Power of Attorney Holder, Manjit Singh v. Mangilal alias Mangtya1, “the lower court has got power to extend time”. 7. Aggrieved the appellant judgment-debtor filed these appeals. 8. Under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) there are certain grounds which bar the relief of specific performance of the contract. This Section, insofar it is relevant, is as under :- “16. Personal bars to relief.-Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person- (a) ............ (b) ............ (c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (c),- (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essen­tial for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; (ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willing­ness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.” 9. Under Section 28 of the Act after a decree for specific performance of contract for the sale of immovable property has been made and the purchaser decree-holder does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor judgment-debtor may apply in the same suit in which decree is made, to have the contract rescinded. Section 28 of the Act is as under :- "28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed.-(1) Where in any suit a decree for specific perform­ance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the Court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require. (2) Where a contract is rescinded under sub-section (1), the Court- (a) shall direct the purchaser or lessee, if he has obtained posses­sion of the property under the contract, to restore such possession to the vendor or lessor, and (b) may direct payment to the vendor or lessor of all the rents and profits which have accrued in respect of the property from the date on which possession was so obtained by the purchaser or lessee until restoration of possession to the vendor or lessor, and, if the justice of the case so requires, the refund of any sum paid by the vendee or lessee as earnest money or deposit in connection with the contract. (3) If the purchaser of lessee pays the purchase money or other sum which he is ordered to pay under the decree within the period referred to in sub-section (1), the Court may, on application made in the same suit, award the purchaser or lessee such further relief as he may be entitled to; including in appropriate cases all or any of the follow­ing reliefs, namely - (a) the execution of a proper conveyance or lease by the vendor or lessor; (b) the delivery of possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property on the execution of such conveyance or lease. (4) No separate suit in respect of any relief which may be claimed under this section shall lie at the instance of a vendor, purchaser, lessor or lessee, as the case may be. (5) The costs of any proceedings under this section shall be in the discretion of the court.” 10. In the present case no such application has been filed by the respondent decree-holders before the trial Court seeking extension of time to deposit the balance amount under the decrees. The application which have been filed in the High Court have been transmitted to the executing court with a direction to the executing court to dispose them of by restoring the execution applications which had been dismissed. 11. It was submitted by Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the respond­ent decree-holders that this Court should not interfere in the order of the High Court inasmuch as matter has only been remanded to the executing court to dispose of the applications for extension of time to deposit the balance amount of consideration in terms of the decree in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sardar Mohan Singh’s case, (supra). There cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law laid in that judgment which states :- “From the language of sub-section (1) of Section 28, it could be seen that the Court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of the decree for specific performance not it becomes functus officio. The very fact that Section 28 itself gives power to grant order of rescis­sion of the decree would indicate that till the sale deed is executed in execution of the decree, the trial court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of specific performance. The very fact that Section 28 itself gives power to grant order of rescis­sion of the decree would indicate that till the sale deed is executed in execution of the decree, the trial court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of specific performance. It would also be clear that the Court has power to enlarge the time in favour of the judgment-debtor to pay the amount of to perform the conditions mentioned in the decree for specific performance, in spite of an application for rescission of the decree having been filed by the judgment-debtor and rejected. In other words, the Court has the discretion to extend time for compliance of the conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific performance.” 12. Again, while considering the provisions of Section 28 of the Act as application to the facts of the case before it this Court in K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. P.S.S. Soma­sundaram Chettiar2 said : "It is perfectly open to the Court in control of a suit for specific performance to extend the time for deposit, and this Court may do so even now to enable the plaintiff to get the advantage of the agreement to sell in her favour. The disentitling circumstances relied upon by the defendant-respon­dent are off-set by the false pleas raised in the course of the suit by him and rightly negatived. Nor are we convinced that the application for consideration and extension of time cannot be read, as in substance it is, as a petition for more time to depos­it. Even so, specific performance is an equitable relief and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to ensure that equity is done to the opposite party even while granting the relief. The final end of law is justice, and so the means to it too should be informed by equity. That is why he who seeks equity shall do equity.” 13. In K.S. Vidyanandam & Ors. v. Vairavan3 this Court referred to the circumstances to be considered in exercising the discretionary power of the Court to decree specific performance of agreement for the sale of immovable property. That is why he who seeks equity shall do equity.” 13. In K.S. Vidyanandam & Ors. v. Vairavan3 this Court referred to the circumstances to be considered in exercising the discretionary power of the Court to decree specific performance of agreement for the sale of immovable property. The Court was of the view that in spite of the fact that suit was filed within the period of limitation as prescribed in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court can nevertheless see that even where time is not the essence of the contract, the plaintiff must perform his part of the contract in reasonable time and by looking at all the relevant circumstances including the express terms of contract and nature of the property. The case before the Supreme Court was an appeal by the defendants-vendors who has suffered decree of specific performance of agreement for sale of their immovable property located in Madurai in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court noticed that in case of urban properties in India, it is well-known that their price have been going up sharply over the last few decades. The Court then held as under : “In the case before us, it is not mere delay, It is a case of total inaction on the part of the plaintiff for 2½ years in clear violation of the terms of agreement which required him to pay the balance, purchase the stamp papers and then ask for execution of sale deed within six months. Further, the delay is coupled with substantial rise in prices - according to the defendants, three times - between the date of agreement and the date of suit notice. The delay has brought about a situation where it would be inequitable to give the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff.” The Court relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench in Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani4. 14. In N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) By LRs. v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors.5 this Court observed with reference to Sections 16(c) and 20 of the Act that the continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance and that this circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the Court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subse­quent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circum­stances. The Court is not bound to grant the relief which is discre­tionary merely because there was a valid agreement of sale. It is equitable remedy and is in the discretion of the Court which discre­tion, however, has to be exercised according to the settled principles of law and not arbitrarily. 15. In Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara6 the appellant was the judgment-debtor in a suit for specific performance agreement for sale of immovable property. The question before the Court was whether application under Section 28 of the Act was maintainable on the execu­tion side in a decree passed in the same suit by the appellate Court. Plaintiff-respondent’s suit for specific performance though dismissed by the trial Court was decreed by the appellate Court which granted one month time to deposit the balance amount of consideration. The judgment-debtor filed second appeal in the High Court against the decree which was dismissed. The decree-holder deposited the amount after the time fixed by the appellate Court but before the second appeal was dismissed. Decree-holder applied for execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor filed an application in these very proceedings under Section 28 of the Act for rescission of the contract which had resulted in passing of the decree on the ground that the balance consideration was not deposited within one month of the decree by trial Court, the executing Court dismissed the application on the ground that deposit had been made within the time while holding that the application was not maintainable on the execution side. The High Court on revision also held that the application was not maintainable in the executing Court. This led the judgment-debtor to come to this Court. This Court observed that when the decree specifies the time for performance of the conditions of the decree, on its failure to deposit the money, Section 28(1) itself gives power to the Court to extend the time on such terms as the Court may allow to pay the purchase money or other sum which the Court has ordered him to pay. The Court held, after noticing the conflict of decisions by the Bombay High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court, that when the Court which passed the decree and the executing court is the same, application under Section 28 can be filed in the executing Court. However, where decree is transferred for execution to a trans­feree executing then certainly the transferee court is not the original Court and the executing court is not the “same Court” within the meaning of Section 28 of the Act. But when an application has been made in the court in which the original suit was filed and the execution is being proceeded with, then certainly an application under Section 28 is maintainable in the same court. Then dealing with the contention of the judgment-debtor that deposit was not within the time allowed by the appellate court, the court said : “The question then is whether it is a fit case for our interference. It is seen that the decree for specific performance became final. While the second appeal was pending, the balance consideration was deposited and no steps have been taken to bring it to the notice of the High Court that the respondent had committed default in compliance of the appellate decree depos­iting within the given time the balance consideration. Moreover, the respondent has been in possession of the land for a long time. The execution is on midway. Under these circumstances, the command of Article 136 of the Constitution is to draw the curtain and allow the application to lie in quietus where it was laid and dismiss the ap­peal.” 16. In view of the decision of this Court in Ramankutty Guptan’s case (supra) when the trial Court and the executing Court are same, execut­ing Court can entertain the application for extension of time though the application is to be treated as one filed in the main suit. On the same analogy, the vendor judgment-holder can also seek rescission of the contract of sale or take up this plea in defence to bar the execu­tion of decree. One of the grounds on which the trial Court dismissed the execution application was that the decree holder did not pay the balance of consideration as per the sale agreement and also did not pay within the time stipulated by the Court in the decree. One of the grounds on which the trial Court dismissed the execution application was that the decree holder did not pay the balance of consideration as per the sale agreement and also did not pay within the time stipulated by the Court in the decree. High Court could have certainly gone into this question when applications for extension of time was filed before it. However, on the objection by the judgment-debtor, it chose to send back the matter to the executing Court for decision on these applications, which was perhaps, in cir­cumstances, was not correct procedure to adopt. But then, at the same time, the High Court put shackles on the discretion of the executing Court by observing that vendor might have felt that after the appeal filed by the vendor judgment-holder against the decree for specific performance was disposed of they can even then deposit the amount or at the time of seeking the execution of the sale deed. 17. The agreement of sale was entered into as far back on February 16, 1980, about 19 years ago. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the balance amount of consideration could not be deposited within time granted by the Court and why no application was made under Section 28 of the Act seeking extension of time of this period. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 3 years period is prescribed for filing the suit for specific performance of contract of sale from the date of the agreement or when the cause of action arises. Merely because a suit is filed within the prescribed period of limitation does not absolve the vendee-plaintiff from showing as to whether he was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and if there was non-performance was that on account of any obstacle put by the vendor or otherwise. Provi­sions to grant specific performance of an agreement are quite strin­gent. Equitable considerations come into play. Court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale. Provi­sions to grant specific performance of an agreement are quite strin­gent. Equitable considerations come into play. Court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale. That being the position of law for filing the suit for specific performance, can the Court as a matter of course allow extension of time for making payment of balance amount of consideration in terms of a decree after 5 years of passing of the decree by the trial Court and 3 years of its confirmation by the appellate Court? It is not the case of the re­spondent-decree holder that on account of any fault on the part of the vendor-judgment-debtor, the amount could not be deposited as per the decree. That being the position, if now time is granted, that would be going beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the suit for specific performance of the agreement though this provision may not be strictly applicable. It is nevertheless an important cir­cumstance to be considered by the Court. That apart, no explanation whatsoever is coming from the decree-holder-respondents as to why they did not pay the balance amount of consideration as per the decree except what the High Court itself thought fit to comment which is certainly not borne out from the record. Equity demands that discre­tion be not exercised in favour of the decree holder-respondents and no extension of time be granted to them to comply with the decree. 18. These appeals are, therefore, allowed with costs. Judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the executing Court confirmed. (C.R.) Appeals allowed. ********** Statutes and Notifications the Companies (Central Govern­ment’s) General Rules and Forms (Amendment) Rules, 1999 1G.S.R. 23(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 642 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), read with sub-section (11) of Section 58A, sub-section (6) of Section 77A and Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956, the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Companies (Central Government’s) General Rules and Forms, 1956, name­ly:- 1. (1) These Rules may be called the Companies (Central Govern­ment’s) General Rules and Forms (Amendment) Rules, 1999. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. (1) These Rules may be called the Companies (Central Govern­ment’s) General Rules and Forms (Amendment) Rules, 1999. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the Companies (Central Government’s) General Rules and Forms, 1956,- (1) after rule 4CC, the following rule shall be inserted, name­ly:- “4CCC. Section 58A-For the purposes of sub-section (11) of Section 58A, a nomination shall be in Form 2B, setforth in Annexure A.”; (2) after rule 5B, the following rules shall be inserted, name­ly:- “(5-C). Section 77A-For the purposes of sub-section (6) of Section 77A, a declaration of solvency shall be in Form 4A setforth in Annex­ure A.” “5-D. Section 109A-For the purposes of Section 109A(1) a nomination shall be in Form 2B, setforth in Annexure A." (3) in Annexure A(i)-after form 2A, the following form shall be inserted, namely:- “Form 2B (see rules 4CCC and 5D) Nomination Form (To be filled in by individual applying singly or jointly (if jointly, only upto two persons) I/We....................................................and............................the holders of Shares/ Debentures/Deposit Receipt bearing number(s)......................................................... of M/s..................................................................................................wish to make a nomination and do hereby nominate the following person in whom all rights of transfer and/or amount payable in respect of shares/debentures/deposits shall vest in the event of my/our death. Name and Address of Nominee Name : ....................................................................................... Address : ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... Date of Birth* : ................................................................... (* to be furnished in case the nominee is a minor) **The Nominee is a minor whose guardian is........................................ Name and Address........................................................................................ (**To be deleted if not applicable) Signature : ......................................................... Name : ......................................................... Address : ......................................................... ......................................................... ......................................................... Date : ......................................................... Signature : ......................................................... Name : ......................................................... Address : ......................................................... ......................................................... ......................................................... Date : ......................................................... Signature of two Witnesses Name and Address Signature with date 1. 2. Instructions: 1. The Nomination can be made by individuals only applying/holding shares/ debentures on their own behalf singly or jointly upto two persons. Non-individuals including society, trust, body corporate, partnership firm, Karta of Hindu Undivided Family, holder of power of attorney cannot nominate. If the shares are held jointly all joint holders will sign the nomination form. 2. A minor can be nominated by a holder of shares/debentures/deposits and in that event the name and address of the Guardian shall be given by the holder. 3. If the shares are held jointly all joint holders will sign the nomination form. 2. A minor can be nominated by a holder of shares/debentures/deposits and in that event the name and address of the Guardian shall be given by the holder. 3. The nominee shall not be a trust, society, body corporate, partnership firm, Karta of Hindu Undivided Family or a power of attor­ney holder. A non-resident Indian can be a nominee or re-patriable basis. 4. Nomination stand rescinded upon transfer of share/debenture or repayment/ renewal of deposits made. 5. Transfer of share/debenture in favour of a nominee and repayment of amount of deposit to nominee shall be a valid discharge by a company against the legal heir.”; (ii) after Form 4, the following form shall be inserted, namely:- “Form No. 4A (See rule 5C) Declaration of Solvency Name of the Company : ...................................................................... Address (Regd. Office) : ...................................................................... ...................................................................... ...................................................................... ...................................................................... Presented by : ...................................................... (name) ....................................................... (Designation) We, ................................................... of ................................and of.................... being all the directors of M/s. ............................................................do solemnly affirm and declare that we have formed the opinion that the company is capable of meeting its total liabilities and that the company will not be rendered insolvent within a period of one year from the date of making this declaration. We append a statement of company’s assets and liabilities as at.............................. being the latest date before making of this declara­tion (Annexure-I). We further declare that the company’s audited annual accounts includ­ing the Balance Sheet have been filed upto date with the Registrar of Companies.................................... Signature ........................................................... Name ........................................................... Managing Director Signature ........................................................... Name ........................................................... Directors Signature ........................................................... Name ........................................................... Directors Verification And we make this solemn declaration believing the same to be true. We solemnly declare that we have made a full enquiry into the affairs of the company including assets and liabilities of this company and that having done so and having noted that the sharesholders by a special resolution have approved the buy-back of...................... (....................................................) (in words) number of shares/securities as per the provisions of the Section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956, as inserted by the Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999 (1 of 1999) Verified this day the...................................day of................., 19....... Signature ........................................................... Name ........................................................... Managing Director Signature ........................................................... Name ........................................................... Directors Signature ........................................................... Name ........................................................... Directors Solemnly affirmed and declared at.................................................. the ...............day of................., 19.......... before me. Signature ........................................................... Name ........................................................... Managing Director Signature ........................................................... Name ........................................................... Directors Signature ........................................................... Name ........................................................... Directors Solemnly affirmed and declared at.................................................. the ...............day of................., 19.......... before me. Commissioner for Oaths and Notary Public or Justice of the Peace Annexure-I Statement of Assets and Liabilities Statement as at..............................19........., showing assets at estimated rea­lisable values and liabilities expected to rank. Name of the Company : .................................................................... Assets Book Value Estimated to Realise 1. Balance at Bank 2. Cash in hand 3. Marketable Securities 4. Bills Receivable 5. Trade Debtors 6. Loans and Advances 7. Unpaid Calls 8. Stock-in-trade 9. Work in Progress viz 10. Freehold Property 11. Leasehold Property 12. Plant and Machinery 13. Furniture, fittings, utensiles etc. 14. Patents, Trade Marks, etc. 15. Investments other than Marketable Securities 16. Other property viz. ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ Total : Liabilities Estimated to rank for payment (to the nearest rupee) 1. Secured on specific assets viz; ................................................... 2. Secured by floating charge(s), viz; ................................................... 3. Estimated cost of liquidation and other expenses including interest accruing until payment of debts in full. 4. Unsecured creditors (amounts estimated to rank for payment) (a) Trade accounts (b) Bills payable (c) Accrued Expenses (d) Other liabilities ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... (e) contingent liabilities ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... -------- Total : -------- Total estimated value of assets Rs. ........................... Total Liabilities Rs. ........................... Estimated surplus after paying debts in full -------- Rs. ....................... --------- Remarks : Signatures ...................................... Name ...................................... Managing Director Signature ...................................... Name ...................................... Directors Signature ...................................... Name ...................................... Directors Place : ........................ Dated : ........................ *The period to be filled in should not exceed 3 years”. Footnote:-The Principal rules were published vide S.R.O. 432 dated 18.2.56 and subsequently amended by:- 1. SRO 2535 dated 1-11-1956 2. SRO 3135 dated 21-12-1956 3. SRO 237 dated 19-1-1957 4. SRO 2105 dated 29-1-1957 5. SRO 3038 dated 28-9-1957 6. SRO 3867 dated 7-12-1957 7. GSR 48 dated 22-2-1958 8. GSR 723 dated 23-8-1958 9. GSR 750 dated 30-8-1958 10. GSR 1026 dated 1-11-1958 11. GSR 14 dated 3-1-1959 12. GSR 548 dated 9-5-1959 13. GSR 1140 dated 17-10-1959 14. GSR 1224 dated 7-11-1959 15. GSR 1364 dated 12-12-1959 16. GSR 220 dated 27-2-1960 17. GSR 595 dated 28-5-1960 18. GSR 195 dated 18-2-1961 19. GSR 814 dated 24-6-1961 20. GSR 1105 dated 9-9-1961 21. GSR 1408 dated 25-11-1961 22. GSR 653 dated 12-5-1962 23. GSR 344 dated 2-3-1963 24. GSR 548 dated 9-5-1959 13. GSR 1140 dated 17-10-1959 14. GSR 1224 dated 7-11-1959 15. GSR 1364 dated 12-12-1959 16. GSR 220 dated 27-2-1960 17. GSR 595 dated 28-5-1960 18. GSR 195 dated 18-2-1961 19. GSR 814 dated 24-6-1961 20. GSR 1105 dated 9-9-1961 21. GSR 1408 dated 25-11-1961 22. GSR 653 dated 12-5-1962 23. GSR 344 dated 2-3-1963 24. GSR 628 dated 13-4-1963 25. GSR 97 dated 16-1-1965 26. GSR 822 dated 12-6-1965 27. GSR 1570 dated 30-10-1965 28. GSR 368 dated 19-3-1966 29. GSR 421 dated 18-3-1966 30. GSR 499 dated 9-4-1966 31. GSR 743 dated 21-5-1966 32. GSR 847 dated 4-6-1966 33. GSR 1266 dated 13-8-1966 34. GSR 130 dated 20-1-1968 35. GSR 667 dated 30-6-1973 36. GSR 327(E) dated 10-6-1975 37. GSR 414(E) dated 16-7-1975 38. GSR 2596 dated 1-11-1975 39. GSR 2828 dated 13-12-1975 40. GSR 154 dated 31-1-1976 41. GSR 248(E) dated 24-3-1976 42. GSR 627 dated 14-5-1977 43. GSR 24(E) dated 9-1-1979 44. GSR 1256 dated 6-10-1979 45. GSR 555(E) dated 4-9-1982 46. GSR 479(E) dated 22-4-1988 47. GSR 694(E) dated 10-6-1988 48. GSR 782(E) dated 13-7-1988 49. GSR 908(E) dated 7-9-1988 50. GSR 1032(E) dated 26-10-1988 51. GSR 449(E) dated 17-4-1989 52. GSR 510(E) dated 24-5-1990 53. GSR 795(E) dated 18-9-1990 54. GSR 289(E) dated 31-5-1991 55. GSR 614(E) dated 3-10-1991 56. GSR 754(E) dated 26-12-1991 57. GSR 312(E) dated 6-3-1992 58. GSR 353(E) dated 26-3-1992 59. GSR 484(E) dated 11-5-1992 60. GSR 581(E) dated 27-8-1993 61. GSR 621(E) dated 24-9-1993 62. GSR 286(E) dated 1-3-1994 63. GSR 598(E) dated 28-7-1994 64. GSR 697(E) dated 20-9-1994 65. GSR 283(E) dated 21-3-1995 66. GSR 424(E) dated 26-5-1995 67. GSR 251(E) dated 21-6-1996 68. GSR 97(E) dated 28-2-1997 ************* The Interest on delayed payments to small scale and ancillary indus­trial undertakings (Amendment) Act, 19981 (No. 23 of 1998) [10th August, 1998] An Act to amend the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993 Be it enacted by Parliament in the Forty-ninth Year of the Republic of India as follows:- 1. Short title.-This Act may be called the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings (Amend­ment) Act, 1998. 2. Short title.-This Act may be called the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings (Amend­ment) Act, 1998. 2. Amendment of Section 2.-In the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (32 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in Section 2, in clause (f), for the words “or Union Territory”, the following shall be substituted, namely:- “or Union territory and includes,- “(i) National Small Industries Corporation, being a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (ii) the Small Industries Development Corporation of a State or a Union territory, by whatever name called, being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.” 3. Amendment of Section 3.-In Section 3 of the principal Act, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- “Provided that in no case the period agreed upon between the supplier and the buyer in writing shall exceed one hundred and twenty days from the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance.” 4. Substitution of new section for Section 4.-For Section 4 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:- ‘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 India. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, “Prime Lending Rate” means the Prime Lending Rate of the State Bank of India which is available to the best borrowers of the bank’. 5. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, “Prime Lending Rate” means the Prime Lending Rate of the State Bank of India which is available to the best borrowers of the bank’. 5. Amendment of Section 6.-Section 6 of the principal Act shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof and after sub-section (1) as so renumbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any party to a dispute may make a reference to the Industry Facilitation Council for acting as an arbitrator or conciliator in respect of the matters referred to in that sub-section and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such dispute as if the arbitration or conciliation were pursuant to an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of that Act.” 6. Insertion of new Sections 7A, 7B and 7C.-After Section 7 of the principal Act, the following sections shall be inserted, namely:- “7A. Establishment of Industry Facilitation Council.-The State Gov­ernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish one or more Industry Facilitation Councils at such places exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas, as may be specified in the notifica­tion. 7B. Composition of Industry Facilitation Council.-(1) The Industry Facilitation Council shall consist of one or more members to be ap­pointed from amongst the following categories:- (i) Director of Industries by whatever name called or any other officer not below the rank of such Director, of the State Government; (ii) representatives of banks and financial institutions; (iii) office-bearers or representatives of State Industry Associations; and (iv) persons having special knowledge in the field of Industry, Finance, Law, Trade and Commerce. (2) The person appointed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) shall be the Chair-person of the Industry Facilitation Council. (3) The composition of the Industry Facilitation Council, the manner of filling vacancies among, and the procedure to be followed in the discharge of their functions by, the members shall be such as may be prescribed by rules by the State Government. 7C. (3) The composition of the Industry Facilitation Council, the manner of filling vacancies among, and the procedure to be followed in the discharge of their functions by, the members shall be such as may be prescribed by rules by the State Government. 7C. Laying of rules before State Legislature.-Every notification issued and every rule made by the State Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued or made, before the State Legislature.” *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. C. Alagappan & Anr., 1999(1) Supreme 389 : 1999(1) CCC 199 : AIR 1999 SC 918 : JT 1999(1) SC 216 : 199(1) UJ (SC) 486 : 1999(4) SCC 702 00333