The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the TDS certificate and the determination of the appellant's status as a sub-contractor, which influenced the court's decision to direct the garnishee to withhold a specific amount and deposit it in a fixed deposit.

B. RAJENDRAN, J

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2011 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the Original Application No. 124 of 2011 in C.S. No. 100 of 2011 filed by him to restrain the second respondent/garnishee from disbursing or releasing any amount payable to the first respondent.

2. According to the plaintiff/appellant, the suit was filed against the first respondent herein for recovery of Rs.1,10,09,558/- together with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation. According to the plaintiff/appellant, he was a sub-contractor of the first respondent and he had completed 90% of the work entrusted to him by the first respondent. The contract was originally awarded in favour of the first respondent by the second respondent/Railways and that work was sub-contracted to the plaintiff/appellant by the first respondent. The plaintiff/appellant alleged that the contract work was entrusted by the first respondent orally and he had also completed the work entrusted to him by investing huge amount. After completing the work, the plaintiff/ appellant raised bills and the bills raised by the plaintiff/appellant to the first respondent would be paid by the second respondent/railways. However, instead of collecting the money from the second respondent railways and paying it to the plaintiff/appellant, the first respondent failed to pay the amount. The plaintiff/appellant however admits that the bills relating to R.A. Bill Nos. 1 to 11 has been paid and what was due was in respect of the bills relating to R.A. Bill Nos. 11-A, 12, 13 and 14, which were claimed by him in the suit. Pending suit, the plaintiff/ appellant filed two applications, one for attachment of the immovable property belonged to the first respondent situate at Hyderabad and other application praying for an interim injunction restraining the second respondent/Garnishee from releasing or disbursing any amount payable to the first respondent. According to the plaintiff/ appellant, if the amount is released by the second respondent/garnishee to the first respondent, even if he succeeds in the suit, he could not recover the amount from the first respondent or he could not execute the decree. Inasmuch as the plaintiff/appellant had completed the work entrusted to him by the first respondent by spending huge money and the first respondent failed to pay the amount payable to him, he is entitled to recover the amount from the first respondent and therefore, he had filed the suit and the aforesaid two applications. As far as the application praying for attachment of the immovable property is concerned, the learned single Judge only recorded the undertaking given by the first respondent that he will not alienate or encumber the property situate at Hyderabad and based on such undertaking, the application for attachment was closed. As against the said order, no appeal was filed by both sides. However, as against the dismissal of the application praying to restrain the second respondent/garnishee from releasing or disbursing the amount, the present appeal is filed before us.

3. The first respondent would contend that the alleged sub-contract itself is false and incorrect. According to the first respondent, the plaintiff/appellant was only an employee under him and he was permitted to do the work on monthly payment of Rs.25,000/- per month, besides commission of 2% on the total project cost. The first respondent would mainly contend that the entire amount payable to the plaintiff/appellant was paid to him as advance and he had also executed a power of attorney and based on such power of attorney, the amount was advanced to him by the first respondent. Under those circumstance, the plaintiff/appellant can never be called as a Sub-Contractor and the plaintiff/appellant was only an agent of the first respondent. Therefore, the suit claim made by the plaintiff/appellant is illegal. Even