9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 principa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the aforesaid order. At the hearing of the said applications, it was put to the counsel for the petitioner that the extension as prayed would be granted subject to the directors of the petitioner filing an affidavit to the effect that not only the first instalment but all future payments directed to be made in terms of the order dated 1st September, 2021 would be made by the petitioner as per the timeline fixed therein. Upon taking instructions, the counsel for the petitioner withdrew the said applications. The said applications were dismissed by the order dated 6th September, 2021 with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, with the following observations: "4. The Court is surprised with this kind of instruction being given by the petitioner to its ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents respectively, and it was only after the abovesaid order was passed by this Court on 1st September, 2021 that the said amounts have been paid to the respondents. The petitioner was well aware of the penalty imposed by the Executing Court by the impugned orders and despite the same, contested the same unsuccessfully for over two years. If the petitioner felt that the penalty being imposed was excessive, the petitioner should have challenged the impugned orders immediately. The reason why the said penalty has magnified into a sum of Rs. 10,70,000/- is only because the petitioner did not pay the amounts of TDS that were required to be paid. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot avoid the payment of the penalty imposed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
