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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Even An Unregistered Partnership Firm Can Maintain ‘Cheque Bounce’ Complaint

In M/s Uttam Traders Ranghri vs. Tule Ram alias Tula Ram, an appeal was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court solely on the ground that one of the partners of the complainant-firm which is an unregistered partnership concern, had failed to prove that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The High Court decided that two questions arise for consideration in this matter :- 1) Whether acquittal by the magistrate solely on the ground that the managing partner of the appellant having failed to establish that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint was correct 2) Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the first issue, the High Court referred to M/s Haryana State Co.Op., Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. M/s Jayam Text...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more