2010 (2) TMI 1203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The only controversy remaining in this execution is two-fold; firstly, as to till which date the decree holder is entitled to interest, whether till the date of attachment effected pursuant to the order in the execution or till the date of release of the attached monies and secondly as to whether the judgment debtor / DDA is entitled to deduct at source amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imately on 2nd August, 2006 on the failure of the judgment debtor to make payment inspite of assurances, this court directed the attached monies to be forwarded by the bank in the name of the Registrar General of this Court. Thereafter on 18th December, 2006, the counsel for the judgment debtor for the first time contended that the amount payable under the decree was less than the amount attached ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 194 C of the Income Tax Act had merged in the decree and no deduction at source could be claimed. The said judgment was followed by other Single Judges in order dated 19th February, 2008 in Execution Petition No.129/2007 titled V.K. Dewan & Company Vs. Delhi Jal Board and in order dated 13th July, 2006 in Execution Petition No.55/2006 titled Shri Balwant Jain Vs. DDA. 4. The counsel for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urce. The said order cannot thus be relied upon by the judgment debtor as laying down that no such deduction is to be made. On the contrary, it also recognizes that no such deduction is to be made. It also shows that deduction of tax qua interest, under Section 194 A was also held to be impermissible. I may also notice that recently in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 10 SCC ....