Judgement GOHIL, J. :- Appellants have filed this Misc. Appeal under Section 32(9) of the State Financial Corporation Act 1951 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act'), against the judgment and decree dated 13-11-2000 passed by First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 3-8-2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent State Financial Corporation has filed proceedings under Section 31 of the Act, for the recovery of Rs. 2,68,640.55 paise against the appellants. The appellants have taken loan from the respondent-corporation of Rs. 1,71,000/- on the different dates. The loan was sanctioned on 13-11-1982 and a document Ex. P/1 was executed. There is no dispute about taking of loan, as the same has been accepted by the respondent and, therefore, the Court has found that the loan was taken by the appellants. It was agreed that they will pay interest @ 15% per annum as per agreement on the aforesaid loan. The respondent No. 3 is the surety for the said loan. This is also not disputed that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 paid Rs. 1,20,695.25 paise towards the loan and the property was also mortgaged for the security of the said loan. 3. It was the contention of the appellants in the written statement that the amount of subsidy Rs. 72,630/- was wrongly adjusted against the loan and the respondent unit is a sick unit. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties decided all the issues in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit and rejected the contention raised by the appellant; against which the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the evidence and findings on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the subsidy and soft loan were wrongly and prematurely appropriated by the respondent towards the liability of the loan and the respondent-corporation was not entitled to appropriate the same. It was further submitted that because the appellant-industry was declared as a sick unit, therefore, under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1985') no suit was maintainable and it was also argued that the respondent was not entitled to recover the interest @ 15% or 12.50% p.a. as has been awarded by the Court and, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and decree be set aside. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have perused the judgment of the trial Court. Trial Court has recorded a finding that the respondent was entitled to appropriate the amount of subsidy and soft loan towards the liability of loan and the Court has also awarded interest according to the agreed rate. From the pleadings in written statements, documents produced on record and the evidence of the parties particularly from Ex. D/6 it appears that the appellant industry was a small scale industrial unit and it has also come in the evidence that it became a sick unit and some rehabilitation plan was also prepared for providing financial assistance through M.P. Finance Corporation/State Bank of India but from the perusal of the documents it is not clear that the provisions of the Act of 1985 were applicable on the appellant-industry. As per definition specified in sub-clause (f) of Section 3 of the Act of 1985 industrial undertakings" means any undertaking pertaining to a scheduled industry carried on in one or more factories by any company but does not include (1) an ancillary industrial undertaking as defined in clause (aa) of Section 3 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951; (ii) a small scale industrial undertaking as defined in clause (j) of the aforesaid Section 3. Therefore, from this definition it is clear that a small scale industrial undertaking is not covered and is not entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the Act of 1985. The appellants themselves have pleaded in para 8 of their reply that the subsidy was granted to the respondent as per the policy which was applicable on the small scale industries. As per Section 22 of the Act of 1985, the benefit of suspension of legal proceedings is only applicable when it is an industrial undertaking and where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under Section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956, or any of the law, no suit for the recovery of money shall lie or be proceeded. To get the protection of Section 22, first it has to be proved that it is an industrial company and then an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or some scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation. 7. We have perused the documents and evidence on record and from none of the documents filed by the parties it appears that any such enquiry was pending or the scheme of rehabilitation which was prepared or was pending under consideration was under Section 17 of the Act of 1985. Though it has been mentioned in the document that the appellant- unit became sick unit and rehabilitation was under consideration but the same was under the aforesaid sections it is not clear. Therefore, the appellants are also not entitled to take the benefit of the same. Thus, it appears that the trial Court has rightly rejected the objection that the suit was not maintainable and has rightly decided the issue in favour of the respondent. 8. So far as the question of appropriation of the amount of subsidy and soft loan is concerned, there is nothing in the agreement, which prohibits regarding the appropriation of the aforesaid amount. So far as the question of interest is concerned, Gajendra Prasad (P.W. 1), the Branch Manager, has stated that "the agreemented rate of interest was 15% p.a. and we have charged from the same rate as per the agreement" but the trial Court has allowed interest @ 12.50% p.a. on the basis of the agreement Ex. P/1. In the agreement, rate of interest has been mentioned as 12.50% and the Court has allowed the decree from the same rate. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find that the trial Court has committed any illegality in passing the decree on all the three basic arguments which were raised by the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not found to be valid that he is entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the Act of 1985. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.