2018 (3) TMI 865 - HC - Indian Laws

Writ of mandamus - mandamus to return the title documents, deposited with it, as Collateral Security, for the loan availed of by the Respondent No.1, albeit, without insistence on payment of sales tax or any other such levy - whether the Respondent No.1 was required to reimburse the sum of ₹ 13,13,075/- along with interest to the appellant herein? Held that - A plain reading of impugned judgment would show that the appellant had apparently, via his counsel given its consent to the learned single Judge that it would stand protected, if a bank guarantee, in the sum indicated in Paragraph 19 was furnished to it - In case a party is of the view that the proceedings of the Court have been incorrectly recorded in the judgement, it is incumbent upon such party to move the concerned Court for rectification, while the matter is still fresh in the mind of the Judge, who passed the order. There is no other way known to law to correct the record of the Court. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment on mandamus for return of title documents without payment of sales tax, interpretation of clauses in Hire Purchase Agreement, liability towards sales tax, bank guarantee requirement, discrepancy in consent for return of title documents, correction of court record.

Analysis:
1. The writ appeal challenged a judgment seeking a mandamus for the return of title documents without payment of sales tax. The appellant's defense was based on Clauses 8 and 33 of the Hire Purchase Agreement, stating the hirer's liability for taxes. The Respondent argued that the hire rent included the sales tax component.

2. The learned single Judge focused on the undisputed payment of a sum towards sales tax by the appellant. The main issue was whether the Respondent was required to reimburse this amount along with interest. The Judge also addressed the rate of sales tax applicable to the machinery.

3. The judgment directed the Respondent to furnish a bank guarantee in favor of the appellant. Upon receiving the guarantee, the appellant was to release the title deeds and resolve the outstanding issues. The Respondent was given the opportunity to make representations, with the appellant required to make a decision if reconciliation failed.

4. During the appeal, the appellant claimed a larger liability towards sales tax, including interest. The Respondent argued that the appellant had consented to the bank guarantee requirement in the previous judgment.

5. The Court emphasized that the judgment accurately reflected the proceedings, and any corrections should be sought through the appropriate legal process. The appellant was advised to approach the single Judge for rectification, if necessary.

Conclusion:
The writ appeal was disposed of with no costs, emphasizing the need for the appellant to seek correction of the court record through the proper legal channels.