Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Udaipur vs Smt. Munna Devi @ Kailash Kanwar & Ors on 4 January, 2012
SBCWP No.12948/2011- New India Assurance Co. Ltd v.
Smt Munna Devi & ors
1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJATSHAN AT
JODHPUR
::
JUDGMENT
::
PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS:
The New India Assurance v. Smt Munna Devi
Co.Ltd., Udaipur and others
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12948 OF 2011 :::
Date of Order: 04th January 2012 ::
PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr Anil Bachhawat, for the petitioner By this writ petition by the petitioner-Insurance Company, a challenge has been made to order dated 03rd October 2011 passed in Execution Petition No.06/2011 in MACT Case No.111/1998 whereby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand passed following order:
"03-10-11
वकल य फर कन अनपस त,
प तत आदश द र हम ब म कमपन दर पततकर पर
पदत दय बय ज क" आय पर स$त पर क" गय आयकर कट'त
(ट .ड .एस.) क बबनद क$ तय करन ह- । हमन बहस पर ग'र ककय एव0 पत वल क अवल$कन ककय , ब म कमपन द र आयकर क" कट'त तनमन क रण3 स सह नह 0 ह- ।
1- च-क ककस-ककस क न म बनव ए ज न ह-, इस ब बत इस अध7करण स क$ई आदश प प नह 0 ककय गय ।
2- पतयक कलम म एक स अध7क आवदक ह- जब कक पततकर क" र शश क च-क कवल एक आवदक क न म ज र कर आयकर क" कट'त क" गय ह-, ज$ उधचत नह 0 ह- ।
3- जब तक पतयक आवदक क" बय ज क" र शश क खल स नह 0 ह$ ज त तब तक बय ज क" आय एक ह वयकA क" म नन SBCWP No.12948/2011- New India Assurance Co. Ltd v.
Smt Munna Devi & ors
2 of 5 उधचत नह 0 ह- । 7 र 194 ए आयकर अध7तनयम क प व7 न3 क अनस र वयकA ववशष क" आय क$ धय न म रखकर ह स$त पर कट'त क" ज न क तनवश ह- ।
4- पततकर एव0 उस पर बय ज क" र शश क ववभ जन अभ शष ह- उस क ब द वयकA ववशष क$ दय बय ज क" र शश क ज न ह$ सकग ।
5- आयकर क टन स पGवH ब म कमपन द र प Iगण स पन नमबर नह 0 म 0ग गय ह- और 20 पततशत क" दर स कट'त कर द गय ह- ज$ उधचत नह 0 ह- ।
6- आयकर कट'त क समबन7 म कट'त स पGवH इस
अध7करण स क$ई ददश तनदL श नह 0 शलय गय हM।
अत: स$त पर क" गय कट'त क" र शश क च-क इस
अध7करण क न म बन य ज कर शभजव ए एव0 ववभ जन क
पशच त O पतयक वयकA क दह स स स$त पर क" ज न व ल कट'त क" र शश क समबन7 म इस अध7करण क$ सधG चत ककय ज व।
शमसल व त प लन आदश 14/10/11 ददन 0क क$ पश ह$।
एस.ड .
नय य 7 श म$टर दरHटन द व अध7करण र जसमनद"
2.As per facts of the case, claimants preferred Claim Petition for compensation against death in an accident occurred on 11th July 1991. The Claim Petition was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 16th January 2001. Then an appeal was preferred against dismissal of the claim petition, which was allowed and a sum of Rs.4,57,000/- was ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till date of realization.
3.Thereafter petitioner-Insurance Company preferred Special Leave Petition against order of this Court and as per petitioner, the same is pending but the preferred Stay Petition has been rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03rd August 2011. In the SBCWP No.12948/2011- New India Assurance Co. Ltd v.
Smt Munna Devi & ors
3 of 5 meanwhile, Execution Petition was preferred by the claimants to get released the amount awarded. Then the petitioner deposited the requisite amount on 19th August 2011. While depositing, they have deducted 20% of the amount as TDS in accordance with provisions of the Income-tax Act.
4.Thereupon, the claimants preferred an application, objecting to deduction of TDS whereupon learned Tribunal vide order impugned dated 03rd October 2011 directed to deposit the amount without deduction of TDS and after division of the amount among claimants, requisite TDS be informed. Against that order dated 03rd October 2011, present writ petition is preferred by the Insurance Company.
5.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered the submissions raised in the writ petition and scanned through the material placed on record.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal has acted in over-exercise of its powers. The claimants in their Execution Petition have not claimed for division of the awarded amount and therefore, after deposit of the amount, with due compliance of sec.194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, direction to deposit entire sum of TDS passed on not making division. Hence, the impugned order is erroneous, illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that they are duty bound to deduct TDS amount as per provisions of Income-tax Act. He referred to secs.194A(i), 194A(ix) and sec.206AA(i) of the Act. He also argued that the Execution Petition does not contain any contention in respect of seeking SBCWP No.12948/2011- New India Assurance Co. Ltd v.
Smt Munna Devi & ors 4 of 5 bifurcation in between claimants for inter-se division, which itself is not in the order dated 19th April 2010 passed by the High Court. As such, claimants being joint legal representatives of the victim had claimed jointly for the compensation. So he prayed that the impugned order dated 03rd October 2011 passed in aforesaid Execution proceedings by the Tribunal be quashed and set aside.
8.I have referred to the order impugned passed by the Tribunal. The above direction in the order clearly speaks that the petitioner should first deposit entire amount with the Tribunal and the Tribunal will decide the entire controversy. It is worthwhile to note here that after amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, the right to file Revision Petition under sec.115 CPC was curtailed but thereafter petitions are being filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
9.In the judgment rendered in the case of Shalini Shamshetty - 2010 (8) SCC 329 Hon'ble Apex Court elaborately considered scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, of course, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India interference of the High Court is permissible but it has been held that an improper and frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principles. This resort to exceptional power is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in any individual case but should be directed for promotion of administration of justice in the larger public interest. Powers SBCWP No.12948/2011- New India Assurance Co. Ltd v.
Smt Munna Devi & ors 5 of 5 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be unfettered, therefore, high degree of judicial discipline is necessary. Paras 48 and 49 of the said judgment give us guideline in this regard.
10.In view of the above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, looking to the order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in the order dated 03rd October 2011 because question of deduction of TDS is yet to be decided by the Tribunal. The case of the petitioner does not fall in any of parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court.
11.Hence, I find no force in the present writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
12.The stay petition also accordingly stands disposed of.
[NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II],J.
mma 2