9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs under the IBC 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Arbitral Tribunal has itself, in the impugned award, set off the amount of ₹ 2,62,93,252/- against the amount of ₹ 5,51,95,198/- and has arrived at a difference of ₹ 2,89,01,946/-. What is sought to contend is essentially that the adjustment of the awarded amount to the respondent against the counter claims preferred by it, from the amount awarded to the petitioner, is impermissible. That, however, would require the petitioner to challenge the award, which has not been done till date - This submission is, therefore, rejected. Case that the respondent could not have deducted TDS from the amount of ₹ 2,89,01,946/- - HELD THAT:- Plainly read, as the petitioner was working as a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal Award in respect of Claims and Counter Claims filed before the Tribunal, the Respondent shall pay net amount of Rs 2,89,01,946/- (Rupees Two Crores, Eighty Six Lacs, Thirty Nine Thousand, Nine hundred and Fifty Six OMP(Enf) (Comm).246/2022 Page 2 of 6 Only) to the Claimant. 32.4 The Tribunal Award that the Respondent which had made a recovery of Rs 6,26,91,900/- (Rupees Six Crores, Twenty Six Lacs, Ninety One Thousand, Nine hundred Only) from another Contract No. BC-7 of the Claimant (M/s IDEB-SUCG JV) to recover the amount alleged for certain Items due to the Respondent against this Contract BC-34 should be reversed and payment of this recovered amount be arranged to the Claimant. 2. There is no dispute about the fact the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of Mr. Seshagiri is that the respondent could not have deducted TDS from the amount of ₹ 2,89,01,946/-. 10. On the last date of hearing, Mr. Seshagiri, learned Counsel for the decree holder submitted that he would be relying on judgment to support his contention that the TDS could not have been deducted by the respondent from the amount of ₹ 9,15,93,846/-, payable to the decree holder under the arbitral award. 11. Deduction of TDS by the respondent from the amount payable to the decree holder, has admittedly been effected in terms of Section 194C (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. Plainly read, as the petitioner was working as a contractor for the respondent, and the money payable to the petitioner under the arbitral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly 2024 in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 65/2021, followed the aforesaid decisions and held that the amount awarded to the successful claimant in the arbitral proceedings has to be paid without deduction of any TDS thereon. 16. Following the said decision as well as the earlier precedents of this Court in Voith Hydro Ltd and Glencore International, it is held that the respondent could not have deducted TDS from the amount of ₹ 9,15,93,846/- payable to the petitioner. 17. It is informed that TDS already stands paid by the petitioner to the Income Tax Authorities as well as the Competent Authority under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996. 18. Where the amount already stands credited to the account of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
