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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more