2019 (8) TMI 1765 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction for supply of TDS Certificate - dismissal of the present execution petition on the ground that orders sought to be executed are purely interim orders - Ld. Counsel for the DH has argued that the said orders are executable under Order 36 of CPC. Moreover he submits that remedy under Order 15A of CPC is not an alternative remedy and the DH under law is entitled to file both the execution petition and application under Order 15A of CPC simultaneously because they are separate proceedings. HELD THAT - Both the parties are directed to file case laws in support of their respective submissions and a short written synopsis with e-copy within three weeks with advance copy to each other. Put up for orders/clarifications on 04.10.2019.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with court order to supply TDS Certificate.
2. Entitlement of DH to recover remaining dues.
3. Executability of interim orders under Order XXI of CPC.
4. Application for striking off JD's defense.
5. Executability of orders under Order 36 of CPC.
6. Simultaneous filing of execution petition and application under Order 15A of CPC.

Analysis:

1. The judgment highlights the issue of non-compliance with a court order directing the JD to supply a TDS Certificate or pay a specified sum to the DH. Despite the clear direction, the TDS Certificate was not furnished, leading to the directive for JD to make the payment within a specified timeframe, failing which penalties would be imposed.

2. Detailed arguments were heard regarding the entitlement of the DH to recover remaining dues for specific periods. The DH sought to recover dues for distinct timeframes, and the JD raised objections regarding the executability of the orders under Section 151 CPC, emphasizing them as interim orders not executable under Order XXI of CPC.

3. The judgment delves into the issue of the executability of interim orders under Order XXI of CPC, with the JD filing an application under Section 151 CPC to dismiss the execution petition based on the nature of the orders. The DH, on the other hand, argued for the executability of the orders under Order 36 of CPC, asserting that the remedy under Order 15A of CPC is not an alternative and can be pursued simultaneously.

4. Furthermore, an application was made by the DH for striking off the JD's defense in the suit due to non-compliance with interim orders passed by the High Court, which had already been decided and not challenged by the DH. This aspect adds complexity to the case and raises questions about the consequences of non-compliance with court orders.

5. The judgment addresses the executability of orders under Order 36 of CPC, as argued by the DH, emphasizing the separate nature of the proceedings and the entitlement to pursue both the execution petition and an application under Order 15A of CPC concurrently. This interpretation seeks to clarify the legal avenues available to the parties in seeking redress.

6. Both parties were directed to provide case laws supporting their positions and submit a written synopsis within a specified timeframe for further consideration. The case was scheduled for orders or clarifications on a future date, indicating ongoing legal proceedings and the need for additional submissions to inform the court's decision-making process.