- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11191 WP No. 55395 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 55395 OF 2017 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD NO.346, II FLOOR MANANDI COURT 27TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR III BLOCK BANGALORE-560011 REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE-X NO.51/2, VINAY COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR OPP NATIONAL COLLEGE VANIVILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560004 BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI A DEVA PRASAD S/O LATE A GEORGE SAMUEL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SMT INDIRA W/O SRI A DEVA PRASAD AGED ABOPUT 61 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A NO.22, ‘DIMPU’ 1ST CROSS SHARAVATHI NAGAR SHARADAMMA COMPOUND SHIMOGA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. JEEVAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11191 WP No. 55395 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN EXECUTION CASE NO.108/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. JUDGE AND 24TH ACMM, SCH-20, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON MEMO OF CALCULATION DTD6.7.2017 AND ALSO THE WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT OF MOVABLES DTD8.7.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-A & B CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS/CLOSE THE EXECUTION CASE AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside/quash the impugned order on Memo of Calcuation dated 6.7.2017 and also the warrant of attachment of movables dated 8.7.2017 as per Annexure-A & B and consequently dismiss/close the execution case; ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, and award costs in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The respondents had filed a claim petition on account of the accident in MVC No.583/2004. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.4,82,000/- along with 5% interest calculated from 24.01.2006. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11191 WP No. 55395 of 2017 respondents had filed an appeal in MFA No.5293/2006 seeking for enhancement of compensation. The petitioner-Insurance Company had filed MFA No.7120/2006 for setting aside the compensation awarded. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company came to be dismissed, however the appeal filed by the respondents came to be allowed by enhancing the compensation by further amount of Rs.66,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 4. The petitioner-Insurance Company claimed to have paid an amount of Rs.6,62,212/- on 06.03.2015 in full and final settlement of the judgement and award including the enhancement by this Court. While calculating said amount, the Insurance Company also claimed that the tax deducted at source in pursuance of Section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would also have to be taken into consideration and as such account for the amount said to have been remitted - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11191 WP No. 55395 of 2017 with the Income Tax Department under Section 194 it is contended that the entire dues have been paid. 5. The respondents claiming that the entire amounts have not been paid had initiated Execution proceedings in Ex.No.108/2017, where memos of calculations was filed by both Insurance Company and Claimants. A memo calculation filed by the Insurance Company-Judgment Debtor was rejected, the memo calculation filed by the claimant has partially accepted and the Execution Court taking into account that there was no document which has been placed on record indicating the remittal of the amount on account of tax deduction at source directed payment of sum of Rs.1,56,972/-, it is challenging the same that the insurance company is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 6. Today a memo has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner stating that despite several correspondence which have been made by the petitioner to the Income Tax Department seeking for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11191 WP No. 55395 of 2017 details regarding the TDS. The matter being old, the Income Tax Department has not answered favourably to the Insurance Company and as such no documents have been secured. 7. Despite the filing of the said memo, he submits that the Insurance Company has deducted the tax and remitted the same to the Income Tax Department as such due credit has to be given to the petitioner which has not been so done by the Execution Court. On that basis, he submits that the Execution Court not taking into account the tax deducted at source, the direction which has been issued by the Execution Court for payment of monies is not sustainable. 8. Heard Sri.Ravi Shankar.C.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar., learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused papers. 9. The only contention in the present matter is as regards the non-consideration of the TDS amounts and the levy of interest on the said TDS amount. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11191 WP No. 55395 of 2017 10. The submission insofar as the first part is concerned is that amount has been deducted and remitted to Income Tax Department and therefore the same ought to have been into consideration. The submission insofar as the second part is that, if the TDS amount is taken into consideration there would be no interest, which is liable to be pay. The direction to make payment of interest would amount to interest on interest and as such this Court ought to intervene in the matter. 11. If an amount has been deducted by the Insurance Company under Section 194 when the same would have to be remitted to the Income Tax Department and the tax deduction at source certificate issued in terms of Form No.16 to the person on whose account, it has been deducted. So that that person can avail of the said Form No.16 to offset the same from the taxes payable by that person and if lesser taxes is payable to seek for refund of excess amount deducted. Thus, the obligation under Section 194 of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11191 WP No. 55395 of 2017 the Income Tax Act, 1961 is on the person deducting the amount to furnish a TDS certificate to the person on whose account the TDS has been deducted. 12. In the present case, though the submission is made by the counsel for the petitioner that the amount has been deducted and remitted to the Income Tax Authorities, what can only be seen is a deduction and not the remittal, since no certificate to that effect has been issued detailing out the remittance, the remittance challan issued by Income Tax Department, etc. 13. Furthermore, the claim of Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar., learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 is that the so called deduction is not reflected in the Form No.16 statement and as such no claim was made by respondents No.1 and 2 on account of such alleged deduction of tax at source. 14. The petitioner is an Insurance Company having of its beck and call huge accounts department who have to take care of these issues. The filing of memo now to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11191 WP No. 55395 of 2017 content that correspondence has been issued to Income Tax Department and Income Tax Department has not furnished the details is not sustainable or acceptable the obligation being of the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company has not been able to establish that indeed the amount deducted had been remitted with the Income Tax Department, more particularly when there is no Form No.16 which has been issued by the Insurance Company. 15. The deduction is established even by the claim of the petitioner which has been taken into account by the Execution Court and directed to be paid to be claimant along with interest. This interest which has been directed to be paid would not amount to interest on interest as contended by Sri.Ravi Shankar. C.R., learned counsel for the petitioner the said interest is on account of non-payment of the amount deducted by the Insurance Company as regards which no certificate have also been issued. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11191 WP No. 55395 of 2017 by the Execution Court, the petition stands dismissed. 16. Needless to say, that the amount determined by the Execution Court would be liable to be paid by the petitioner within 30 days from today along with the accrued interest thereon. If the amount is not paid by within 30 days from today i.e., on or before 30.4.2025 the interests shall stand enhanced to 9%. 17. Needless to say, in view of the orders passed the Execution Proceedings would stand revived for the respondents to prosecute to matter, if the amounts are not paid. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38