MPMC PVT. LTD. Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the instant application being GA 3 of 2023 the decree- holder has prayed for direction upon the judgment debtor to make payment of a sum of Rs.1,06,01,516.00 towards reimbursement of the municipal taxes and surcharges for the period from September 2006 to August, 2011 after adjusting a sum of Rs.19,81,723.00 in accordance with the prayers in the tabular statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner/decree-holder has submitted that initially the plaintiff/decree-holder filed a suit against the judgment debtor - bank praying for a decree of eviction along with other reliefs and the said suit was decreed on or about 31/7/2008 and on an appeal filed by the bank, the parties thereat amicably settled their disputes and a consent decree was passed on certain terms and conditions on 4/8/2010.

(2.) According to the learned counsel of the decree-holder, pursuant to such consent decree the judgment-debtor - bank had vacated certain portion of the suit premises in favour of the decree-holder and started occupying the rest of the suit premises. The judgment-debtor was under a duty to reimburse the shares of municipal taxes and surcharges and also the service tax. However, the decree-holder has further claimed that the shares of municipal taxes and surcharges which the decree-holder is entitled to receive from the judgment debtor-bank, have been paid to the account of KMC in utter violation of the consent decree. According to the learned counsel, the amount of municipal taxes and surcharges etc. are its entitlement and the bank cannot pay the said amount in favour of the KMC. It is also argued that judgment debtor has agreed to pay the municipal taxes and surcharges but that does not mean that the judgment debtor will pay the petitioner's entitlement to the KMC. It is the decision of the bank and it has done so at its own peril and such action of the judgment debtor cannot affect the petitioner's rights. It is further pointed out that the bank had paid the enhanced valuation assessed by the KMC which was under challenge from the side of the decree-holder and such action on the part of the bank is beyond the scope of the consent decree. It was not correct to say that by paying the amount of taxes and surcharges the judgment debtor was absolved from its duty to reimburse the amount which decree-holder paid to the accounts of KMC. The decree-holder is claiming its entitlement only as it is entitled to Rs.1,26,00,000.00 on account of municipal taxes and surcharges and after adjusting the payment of Rs.19,81,723.00 the due amount has come to Rs.1,06,01,516.00 which is to be paid by the judgment debtor - bank in favour of the decree-holder.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment debtor- bank has vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned counsel of the decree-holder. According to the learned counsel of the bank the service tax issues have already been resolved as the bank has already paid Rs.32,00,000.00 approximately on account of the service tax and there was no allegation till date that service tax was not paid from the side of the bank. As the decree-holder could not provide any receipt showing that they have paid the amount of municipal taxes and surcharges, it was very much difficult for the bank to know the exact amount of municipal taxes and surcharges which are required to be paid from the side of the bank. Moreover, the consent decree does not specify to whom such amount of municipal taxes, surcharges are to be paid and further the consent decree has disclosed only the percentage of municipal taxes and surcharges to be paid by the judgment-debtor bank. The decree-holder itself quantified the amount of municipal taxes and surcharges and it appears that the decree-holder claimed more than 2/3rd shares of municipal taxes and surcharges which they were not actually entitled as per consent decree. As the KMC was directed by the Hon'ble Court to prepare a report for the amount of municipal taxes and surcharges including service taxes and after submission of such report before the court, the judgment debtor found that the relevant amount is its statutory dues and the bank paid the relevant amount in its wisdom to protect its rights and interest. There is no condition of reimbursement mentioned in the consent decree nor there was any condition including to whom such municipal taxes and surcharges are to be paid. As the amount was not crystallized even after the calculation of the decree-holder the judgment-debtor has paid the amount to get rid of legal complications.