9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS and penalty have become final. Submissions of the petitioner that the sum as been calculated only on the basis of the calculation filed by the respondents, the Court is of the view that the petitioner would have a right to submit his own calculations in respect of the amount due. However, the said calculations have to be drawn on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench wherein it is clearly provided that a sum of ₹ 5,50,000/- per month is payable even for the period from 1st March, 2010 to 31 st October, 2010. If the difference between the amount of ₹ 5,50,000/- per month as directed by the Division Bench and ₹ 2,75,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioner is taken into account for the period of eight mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to provide the TDS certificate for an amount of ₹ 1,80,000/- in CM(M) 576/2021 and ₹ 5,60,000/- in CM(M) 577/2021 and failure to pay penalty of ₹ 10,000/- per week imposed earlier vide order dated 1st August, 2019, which order has not been challenged by the petitioner. Review filed against the impugned order dated 18th February, 2021 in both the Execution Petitions was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 12th April, 2021. 5. In CM(M) 577/2021, the petitioner was directed by the Executing Court vide order dated 25th August, 2021 to pay a sum of ₹ 36,87,264/- as outstanding amount due to the respondents from the petitioner, in terms of the judgment dated 18th May, 2016 passed by the Division Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paid by the Executing Court was based on the calculation of the respondents alone. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner has throughout been delaying the matter and not making payments in terms of the judgments/orders passed by this Court. He draws attention of the Court to paragraph 24 of the judgment dated 18th May, 2016 passed by the Division Bench to contend that the Division Bench reduced the amount payable from 1st June, 2010 to 30th April, 2014 from ₹ 7,00,000/- per month to ₹ 5,50,000/- per month and therefore, the reduced amount of ₹ 2,75,000/- per month payable for the period 1st March, 2010 to 31st October, 2010 was also enhanced to ₹ 5,50,000/- per mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the sum of ₹ 36,87,264/- has been calculated only on the basis of the calculation filed by the respondents, the Court is of the view that the petitioner would have a right to submit his own calculations in respect of the amount due. However, the said calculations have to be drawn on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench wherein it is clearly provided that a sum of ₹ 5,50,000/- per month is payable even for the period from 1st March, 2010 to 31 st October, 2010. 10. It has been rightly noted in the impugned order dated 25th August, 2021 as follows: It is stated by counsel for JDs that during the period from March, 2010 to October, 2010, the property was sealed by the MCD. Hence, the amount is disputed. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
