1. Leave Granted:
   The Court granted leave to appeal in this case involving Snehadeep Structures Pvt. Ltd. (SSPL) and Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (MSSIDCL).

2. Parties Involved:
   Learned Senior Advocates represented both SSPL (appellant) and MSSIDCL (respondent).

3. Reference to 1993 Act:
   Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 were discussed. These sections concern the buyer’s liability to make timely payments and the applicable interest rates for delayed payments.

   Acts Discussed:

   • Section 3: Obligation of buyer to pay within 120 days of acceptance.
   • Section 4: Rate of interest for delayed payments.
   • Section 5: Compound interest liability for delayed payments.

4. Definition Clauses in Section 2:
   Key definitions were examined:

   • Appointed Day (2(b)): Payment date or deemed acceptance date.
   • Buyer (2(c)): Entity receiving goods or services.
   • Supplier (2(f)): Small Scale Industries including state entities.

5. Amendments to Section 3 and 2(f):
   The proviso to Section 3 and amendment to Section 2(f) were introduced by the 1998 amendment, limiting the maximum payment period to 120 days.

6. Section 3 Prior to Amendment:
   Before the 1998 amendment, parties could mutually decide the payment date. The "appointed day" served as the default date if no agreement existed.

7. Effect of Proviso to Section 3 Post-Amendment:
   The proviso restricted the contractual agreement to a maximum of 120 days for payments. Any delays beyond 120 days would attract interest under Section 4.

8. Contractual Clause in Question:
   In this case, the contract between SSPL and MSSIDCL dated 30.03.1995 provided that MSSIDCL would pay only after the goods were accepted by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB).

9. Application of Proviso to Section 3:
   The Supreme Court considered whether the 1998 amendment to Section 3 applied to the 1995 contract, as the amendment was introduced after the agreement.

10. Proviso Application:
    Even if the proviso applies after 10.08.1998, the calculation of interest depends on determining the acceptance or deemed acceptance date.

11. No Interference with High Court Judgment:
    The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, which set aside the arbitral award dated 30.06.2003.

12. Relevance of Section 43(4) of Arbitration Act:
    The provisions of Section 43(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, will apply due to the setting aside of the arbitral award.

13. MSEB Not a Necessary Party:
    MSEB need not be made a party to the proceedings, but factual ascertainment regarding the appointed date or acceptance date is required for interest calculation.

14. Compounded Interest and Principal Amount Dispute:
    The dispute over whether interest should be treated as principal was raised, as the arbitral award granted compound interest with monthly rests at 1.5 times the Prime Lending Rate.

15. Restitution Rights for MSSIDCL:
    MSSIDCL can apply for restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the recovery of payments made to SSPL.

16. Appeal Dismissal:
    The appeal was dismissed, with no orders as to costs, and pending applications were disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi:

• The Court upheld that the statutory proviso to Section 3 of the 1993 Act, limiting payment periods to 120 days, overrides any contractual agreements made prior to the 1998 amendment.
• Interest under Section 4 is enforceable even if a contractual clause exists barring payment of interest for delayed payments.

Subjects:
1993 Act, Delayed Payments, Small Scale Industries, Contract Law, Arbitration Act, Interest Calculation, Supreme Court Judgment