Calcutta High Court: In an application seeking direction upon the judgment debtor, Canara Bank, to make payment towards reimbursement of municipal taxes and surcharges as per the consent decree, a single-judge bench comprising of Apurba Sinha Ray,* J., directed the petitioner to furnish precise details of payments made to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), emphasising the importance of such information in concluding the execution proceedings and adjourned the matter for further proceedings on 12-03-2024.
The petitioner, as the decree-holder, filed an application seeking direction upon the respondent-judgment debtor, a bank, to reimburse the petitioner for municipal taxes and surcharges amounting to Rs. 1,06,01,516/- for the period from September 2006 to August 2011, after adjusting a previous payment of Rs. 19,81,723/-. The petitioner had initially sued the respondent for eviction and other reliefs, resulting in a consent decree in 2010. The dispute arose as the respondent allegedly paid the municipal taxes and surcharges to the KMC instead of reimbursing the petitioner as per the consent decree terms. The petitioner argued that the respondent’s payment to the KMC violated the consent decree terms, asserting that the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the decree was ambiguous regarding reimbursement recipients and amounts and respondent had paid service taxes. Furthermore, the respondent contended that the petitioner failed to provide receipts demonstrating the payments made to the KMC, making it difficult for the respondent to ascertain the exact amount owed.
The Court noted that previous orders clarified the nature of the payments as reimbursement for taxes already paid by the petitioner to KMC on behalf of the respondent. Thus, the Court determined that the petitioner could claim the relevant amount from the bank upon demonstrating proof of such payments. However, the Court observed the lack of evidence regarding the precise amount paid by the petitioner to the KMC and despite previous attempts to quantify the amount owed, disputes arose regarding the calculation, leading to further court orders and reports from the KMC.
The Court rejected the respondent’s ambiguity plea regarding respondent’s state of confusion regarding quantification or the amount based on KMC’s report quantifying the amount of taxes etc. The Court criticised the respondent’s decision to directly pay the KMC without Court approval, deeming it unnecessary and potentially disruptive to the execution process. While acknowledging the need for quantification of payments, i.e., reimbursement for municipal taxes and surcharges, already made by the petitioner, the Court directed the petitioner to provide evidence of the exact amounts paid to the KMC. The Court adjourned the matter for two weeks to allow the petitioner to submit the necessary particulars and evidence regarding the payments made to KMC and fixed the next date of hearing on 12-03-2024.
[MPMC (P) Ltd. v. Canara Bank, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2054, order dated 27-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Mainak Bose, Mr. Farham Ghaffar, Ms. Swati Bhattacharyya, Mr. Zeeshan Haque, Counsel for the Petitioner/decree-holder
Mr. Debmalya Ghosal, Ms. Aparajita Ghosh, Mr. Souvik Ghosh, Counsel for the Respondent/judgment-debtor
