The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.OCV Reinforcement Manufacturing Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:274 OF 2015 Petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, aggrieved by the Order dated.11 .06.2014 passed in EP No.9 of 2013, in lt/VOP No.364 of 2008 on the file of the Coud of the Principal Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Warangal District. Between: 1. The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, represented by its regional [\,4anager, Regional Office United lndia Towers Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2. The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional It4anager, 206 and 207, ll Floor, Saptagiri Towers Begumpet, Hyderabad-16 AND 1 ...Revision Petitioners Nethavath Vijaya, W/o. Late Nethavath Keethya @ Ravi, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Household Nethavath Praveen, S/o. Late Nethavath Keethya @ Ravi, Aged about 14 years, Occ: Student Nethavath Naveen, S/o. Late Nethavath Keethya @ Ravi, Aged about 11 years, Occ: Student Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors are rep. by their guardian and natural mother, Nethavath Vijaya, Petitioner No.1 Nethavath Bheekya, S/o. Late Somla, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Nil Nethavath Chilki, W/o. Bheekya, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Household all are residents of Neelagiri Swamy Thanda, H/o D.C.Thanda (V), Wardhannapet l\,4andal, Warangal District. . . . Responde nts/Petitione rs lt/d. Sardar, S/o. l\4ahaboob Ali, Aged aboul 47 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.Sarapaka (V), Bhargampahad ltrlandal Khammam District. ITC Limited, paper Boards & Sepciality Papers Divis, ITC Bhadrachalam House, 106, Sardar Parel Road Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ... Respondents/Res ponde nts 2 3 4 5 6 7 'ts t!

l.A. NO: 'l OF 20 CRPMP. NO: 339 OF 2015 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to stay of disbursement amount of Rs. 39,286i- which was deposited in EP.No.9 of 2013 in lr/VoP.No. 364 0f 2008 dated. 04/05/2012 0n the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), at warangal District, pending disposal of the main civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V. VENKATARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 to 6: ---"--- counsel for the Respondent No.7: M/s KRISHNAVENI REPRESENTING FOR S SRIDHAR The Court made the following: ORDER I

HoNoURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SU*IALATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON No.274 of 2015 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Venkatarami Redcly, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. Ms. Krishnaveni, advocate, representing Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel on record for respondent No.7, submits that respondent No.7 is a formal party. No representation on the side of other respondents. 2' challenge in this civil Revision petition is the action of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal in issuing warrant of attachment of movable property in E.P.No.9 of 2OL3 in MVOp.No.364 of 2OO8 dated 77.6.2014. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that honouring the decree in MVOp.No.364 of 200g, dated 04.5.2012, the revision petitioners deposited their share of amount, but the claimants i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein filed an E.p. claiming a further sum of Rs.39,2g6/_, and indeed the said amount is not due to be paid. Leam

* 2 D..CSL, J CRP.N,.274 ol 20t 5 counsel further states that out of the amount payable, TDS has been deducted and a sum of Rs.26,711/_ was remitted to Income Tax Department and though the said fact was brought to the notice of the Executing Court, it ignored the sarne and issued wa_rrant of attachment without conducting any enquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners by Tax deduction making a mendon that when Income certificate is filed, the claimants are under an obligation to seek for refund of the said amount from the Income Tax Assessing Authority arrd it is not justifiable on part of the Court to order for payment of the said amount, relied upon the decision of the Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in the case betq,een Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, reptd Secunderq.bad Vs. bg fts Diuisionat Manager, G.S.Diwakar and. othersr wherein analyzing similar set of facts, the Court at para 3 of the order held as follows:_ l otat amount of interest on the compensation amount of Rs.4,g7,000/_ came to Rs.1,45,349/_. tzotqe) 11;r,iz

DT.CSL, J Cfr?.No.271 of 20 ts The entire amount was de posited by the insurance company deducting Rs.19,618/- towards TDS paid by the Insurance Company to income Tax department on the compensation amount. In case the claimants are interested in spreading over the interest during several financial years, it is for them to make claim petition before the Income Tax Assessing authority and claim the same and consequently obtain refund of income tax deducted at source. Therefore, when once the insurance company has deducted and remitted the amount to income tax department, the insurance company is once again not liable to remit the said amount in execution proceedings. The revision petitioner gave income tax deduction certificate to the above effect. No doubt, the revision petitioner company should not have deducted and remitted TDS on total interest amount of all JDrs. (sic. D.Hrs.) put together, but should have divided interest relating to each of the D.Hrs. and should have divided interest relating to each of the D.Hrs. and shouid have remitted TDS only in respect of interest payable to that J.Dr. (sic. D.Hr.) whose amount exceeded Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that there is no provision under the Act to claim refund by the garnishee who remitted the amount as TDS amount in case the garnishee had wrongly remitted the said arnount. Therefore, remedy of the respondents iies before the Income Tax Assessing authority and not \ V J

D..CSL, J CRP.Na274 ol 20l s before the executing Court. The lower Court in the circumstances committed error in directing the insurance company to remit TDS amount once again into Court and erred in entrusting ,,varrant of attachment for the said amount to the bailiff for execution against company." the revision petitioner 5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the claimants, failed to dispute the version of the revision petitioners. On what basis the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal came to a conclusion that a sum of Rs.39,2g6/_ is yet to be payabre by the revision petitioners is not detailed an1'where in the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said warrant of attachment of movable property issued by the Executing Court is unsustainable. 6. Resultantly, the Civil Revision petition is allowed without costs. The wa-rrant of attachment of movable property that was issued by the principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal in E.p.No.9 of 2Ol3 in MVOP.No.364 of 2OO8 dated 11.6.2014 is set aside. The Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal is -a' 4 .,.

DT CSL , t directed to deal with the Execution Petition afresh taking into consideration the stand taken by both the parties to the proceedings and then pass an order regarding the liability of the revision petitioners, if any, and thereafter to issue warrant of attachment of movable property if at all required. 7. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 5 I //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.ONESIM DEPUTEIJ:GISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, I\,4MK SB \ V 1. The Principal Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal' at Warangal i. O.. Cc i" iri V. Venkatarami Reddy' Adv^o-cate [OPUC] 5. o;; cc to sri s. Sridhar, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 5. One SPare CoPY ,lt

HIGH COURT DATED:2410612022 ORDER CRP.No.274 of 2015 s 30 JUt'l 202 i4: 1 k }-\E STA () .SPATCHcA * ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ..,/y oo\ +\\ I i E(N"