The court affirmed that failure to comply with payment obligations and delays in challenging judicial orders can result in penalties, emphasizing enforcement of compliance without frivolous excuses.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

CM No. 33164/2021 in CM(M) 641/2021 (for exemption)

CM No. 33166/2021 in CM(M) 642/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of.

CM(M) 641/2021 & CM No. 33163/2021 (for stay)

CM(M) 642/2021 & CM No. 33165/2021 (for stay), CM No. 33167/2021 (for condonation of delay of 752 days in filing petition)

3. The present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugn the orders dated 1st August, 2019 passed by Additional District Judge (ADJ)-04, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Execution Petition No.3081/2016 titled M/s. G.S. Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd and Anr Vs. Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. and Execution Petition No.3082/2016 titled Soni Dave Vs. Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. whereby the petitioner/judgment debtor (JD) was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- in CM(M) 641/2021 and Rs.1,80,000/- in CM(M) 642/2021 to the respondents/decree holders within 15 days failing which the petitioner was directed to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/- per week till the time the payment is made to the respondents/decree holders.

4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that (i) the penalty imposed in terms of the said orders was exorbitant; (ii) there was a dispute between the petitioner and the Income Tax Department because of which the Income Tax Department wrongly recovered the amount from the petitioner by attaching its bank accounts and made wrongful adjustments of the amount deposited by the petitioner towards Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) recovered from various parties including the respondents and therefore, the petitioner could not issue the TDS certificates to the respondents; and (iii) the petitioner has filed a writ petition against the arbitrary action of the Income Tax Department which is pending adjudication before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on advance notice vehemently opposes the present petitions. He contends that the proceedings against the Income Tax Department were filed before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in 2015. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to deduct tax from the payments made to the respondents in 2017. In any event, the counsel submits that the respondents have nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioner and the Income Tax Department and therefore, either the amount of tax deducted should have been paid to the respondents or the necessary certificate evidencing deposit of tax with Income Tax Department should have been furnished to the respondents.

6. Before I proceed to decide the matter on merits, it may be relevant to refer to the conduct of the petitioner and the timing of the present petitions. The impugned orders were passed as far back as on 1st August, 2019, however, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same only now i.e. 21st September, 2021. The reason that the said orders have been impugned only now appears to be in view of the order passed by this court on 1st September, 2021 in CM(M) 576/2021 and CM(M)577/2021 preferred by the petitioner. While disposing of the said petitions on 1st September, 2021, following directions were made:

"13. Accordingly, both petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The principal amount of TDS due in both the petitions i.e. Rs.5,60,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- respectively would be paid by the petitioner to the respondents on or before 4th September, 2021.

(ii) The penalty amount of Rs.10,70,000/- imposed separately in both the petitions would be paid to the respondents on or before