Skip to main content

No deductions allowed from a judgment-debt/arbitral award

Cause Title : M/s. Neo Built Corporation Vs. Union of India, EC 272 of 2022, Calcutta High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 10.07.2023

Corum : Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

Citied: 

  1. All India Reporter Ltd. vs. Ramchandra D. Datar; AIR 1961 SC 943
  2. S.S. Miranda Ltd. vs. Shyam Bahadur Singh; 1984 SCC OnLine Cal 161
  3. Voith Hydro Ltd. vs. NTPC Limited; 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1325

Background

An award of Rs. 3.88 cr was decreed against the Metro Railway which was reaffirmed on appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. However, the grievance of the award-holder is that instead of Rs. 3.88 crores which was recorded in the order dated 4th May, 2023, the award-holder received an amount of only Rs. 3.5 crores. The difference of about Rs. 38 lacs was a result of the award-debtor deducting TDS on the said amount. The Metro Railway argued that the deduction has been done as per the rules set by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways.

Judgment

The question before the HC was whether TDS can be deducted from an awarded/decretal amount.

Referring to the judgments above, the HC observed that the Supreme Court held that the judgment-debtor cannot satisfy the claim of a third party against the judgment-creditor and pay only the balance to the latter in the absence of a direction in the decree to that effect and it has been further decided by the various courts that the judgment-debtor who had deducted TDS, - would be at liberty to take steps for recovery of the amount from Income Tax Authority in accordance with law.

The HC held that the position in law is that the decretal amount is a “judgment-debt” and must be paid in its entirety to the decree-holder. No amount can be deducted as tax at source from the decretal sum and that the judgment-debtor is not entitled to pay only the balance amount to the decree-holder.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more