9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 deposited TDS on the said amount of ₹ 24,75,170/is prima facie unacceptable - in the case of S.P. BROTHERS VERSUS BIREN RAMESH KADAKIA [ 2008 (3) TMI 754 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the Division Bench of this Court has held that the issuance of TDS Certificates does not amount to an acknowledgement of Defendant within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The TDS certificate is primarily to acknowledge deduction of tax at source. This being a triable issue, on this ground alone the Petition deserves to be dismissed - the certificates issued by DMRC would not assist the Petitioner since the Petitioner had privity of contract only with the Company and the said certificate again in any event cannot be construed as an admission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Value of Work (Rs.) 1. DMRC/L6/ BC25/ 59 Contact BC25 May 2010 to Sept.2010 (8610/463) 24,75,170/ 2. DMRC/L6/ BC25/ 59 Contract BC25 upto May, 2010 (8610/463) ₹ 20,84,603 Total ₹ 45,59,773/ 3. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner completed the work to the satisfaction of the Company and the DMRC. However, the Company has failed to pay to the Petitioner an amount of ₹ 24,75,170/despite deducting TDS for ₹ 24,752/. The Petitioner has therefore filed the present petition to recover the said sum of ₹ 24,75,170/and has reserved its right to take out appropriate proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns made by the Company in it reply to the statutory notice. 6. According to the Petitioner, the Company has wrongly contended that the claim of the Petitioner is barred by the law of limitation. It is submitted that the Company deducted and deposited TDS on 7th September 2010 and issued the TDS Certificate to the Petitioner on 22nd November, 2010. The Petition is filed on 12th September, 2013. The starting point for limitation is from the date of issuance of the TDS certificate under form 16A i.e. when the Petitioner came to know that the Company has deducted at source the TDS and has deposited with the Government and not the date of the Company depositing the tax. The Petitioner has further submitted that as per the ledger account of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m number of bridges in the Commonwealth Nations. The Company is currently constructing the iconic Signature Bridge over river Yamuna in Delhi, which is one of a kind in the country. 9. The paid up share capital of the company as on 31st March 2013 is ₹ 27,15,49,336/. As on 31st March 2013, the networth of the Company was approximately ₹ 1,714.62 crores an its turnover for the financial year 20122013 was ₹ 5,197/crores (stand alone) and ₹ 7,494/( consolidated). The Company by no stretch of imagination, can be deemed to be a Company unable to pay its debts. The Company is a listed Company on the Bombay Stock Exchange and a major stakeholders of the Company are general public at large. 10. It is submitted on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the Company. As set out hereinabove, the Petitioner has in paragraph 7 of the Petition stated that the Company inter alia awarded DMRC/L6/ BC25/ 59 contract BC25th May 2010 to September 2010 (8610/463) to the Petitioner, the value of which was ₹ 24,75,170/. In paragraph 9 of the Petition the Petitioner has stated that the work under the contract was completed and accordingly the Company made summary for amount payable to the Petitioner as SQP/51/F3 which is annexed as ExhibitD to the Petition. The said ExhibitD is a summary of bills upto 31st August 2010 including the 34th R.A. Bill aggregating to ₹ 24,75,170/. It is therefore clear that the Petitioner has completed the work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficate. According to the Company the said Amrik Singh was not authorised to issue any such certificate and the Petitioner has acted in collusion with Mr. Amrik Singh and obtained the said certificate for which the Company has already filed an FIR against Shri Amrik Singh. In any event the said certificate cannot be construed as an admission of liability by the Company. Again, the certificates issued by DMRC would not assist the Petitioner since the Petitioner had privity of contract only with the Company and the said certificate again in any event cannot be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the Company. The Company has also pointed out that the Petitioner has failed and neglected to produce the original documents viz. Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
