Ranganathan and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

..... held, generally, an act should always be regarded as prospective in nature unless the legislature has clearly intended the provisions of the said act to be made applicable with retrospective effect. there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the interest on delayed payments to small scale & ancillary industrial undertaking act, 1993 in question is a welfare legislation which was enacted to protect the interest of the suppliers, especially suppliers of the nature of a small-scale industry. but, at the same time, the intention and the purpose of the act cannot be lost sight of and the act in question cannot be given a retrospective effect so long as such an intention is not clearly made out and derived from the act itself. interest on late payment on small scale and ancillary industrial undertakings act (32 of 1993)sections 4, 5, 3 & 2(b): applicability of act or section 34 cpc - act whether prospective or retrospective - supply order made prior to effective date of act, i.e., on 16.7.1992 - act of 1993 coming into force on 23.9.1992 - - trial court decreeing money suit of supplier and directing payment of interest of 24% in terms of 1993 act on a decretal amount of rs. 38,13,480 held, 1993 act is prospective and therefore, not applicable to cases where supply orders placed before effective date. therefore, provisions of section 34 cpc are applicable. - we have now before us the affidavit of the additional chief secretary to the state government which states that the cabinet considered the report on 3-7-1996. the affidavit states that the cabinet has not agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the commission that there was a 'system failure'.the affidavit says nothing more about the commission's report or the action taken thereon. we now have the statement that the cabinet has not agreed with the findings of the commission's report and that there was no 'system failure'.the affidavit in this behalf does not say anything about any findings or..........of the commission would be placed before and considered by the cabinet in the month of june 1996 and that it would be considered in relation to the present writ petitions. we have now before us the affidavit of the additional chief secretary to the state government which states that the cabinet considered the report on 3-7-1996. the affidavit states that the cabinet has not agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the commission that there was a 'system failure'. the affidavit says nothing more about the commission's report or the action taken thereon. it makes no reference to what, if anything, is stated in the report about the victims of the riots. 2. the hearing of the writ petitions was deferred to enable the state government to consider and act upon the report of the commission of enquiry which it had itself instituted. we now have the statement that the cabinet has not agreed with the findings of the commission's report and that there was no 'system failure'. the affidavit in this behalf does not say anything about any findings or recommendations made by the commission in relation to those who had died or been injured or suffered losses in the riots. we think, in these circumstances, that now the writ petitions must be heard soon. 3. the state government may file within four weeks an additional counter dealing with all the specific allegations in the writ petitions. the petitioners may file rejoinders within four weeks thereafter. the writ petitions shall be placed on board for final hearing before any bench after nine weeks. it is made clear that the court may, when hearing the writ petitions, refer to the contents of the report of the justice venkatesh commission.