Disposed

Mr Shanth Gowda v. the Management

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024WP/29076/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A worker received Rs.18 lakh as one-time compensation via a Labour Court joint memorandum of settlement; the employer deducted Rs.3.51 lakh as TDS. The High Court directed the petitioner to apply to the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer with the management's assistance for appropriate relief, following the law laid down in Sundaram Motors (1985) 1 SCC 118, and disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Shanth Gowda Vs the Management — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51657 WP No. 29076 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 29076 OF 2023 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SHANTH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL-562 123.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. AKSHATA SHARMA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHEKHAR BADIGER., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE MANAGEMENT, M/S. RECIPHARM PHARMA SERVICES PVT LTD., NO.34, K.M.TUMKUR ROAD, T.BEGUR VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL-562 123.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 3^RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. DHANANJAY.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNA.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. DILIP.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:51657 WP No. 29076 of 2023

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Smt.Akshata Sharma., counsel on behalf of Sri.Shekhar Badiger., for the petitioner, Sri.Dhananjay.P., counsel on behalf of Sri.Krishna.R., for respondent No.1 and Sri.Dilip.M., counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶22

2. The short facts are these:

¶23

It is said that the petitioner was employed with the first respondent Company. He raised a dispute before the Labor Court in I.D.No.25/2019. After the service of the summons, the management entered an appearance and contested the case. The Labor Court vide award dated 24.11.2022 disposed of the dispute in terms of the Joint Memorandum of Settlement dated 07.11.2022 filed by the petitioner and the management.

¶24

It is said that the management agreed to pay a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- as one-time compensation to the petitioner and

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51657 WP No. 29076 of 2023

¶26

it was agreed that the said amount shall be paid in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs.9,00,000/- shall be paid within 4 to 5 days of the filing of the joint memo of settlement by both the parties before the Labor Court and the Court taking the same on record. The second instalment of Rs.9,00,000/shall be paid by the second week of January 2023. The grievance of the petitioner is that the management has deducted a sum of Rs.3,51,000/- against the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- being 19.5% of the entire amount of the compensation. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to direct the management to pay an amount of Rs.3,51,000/-. The petitioner is also seeking a Writ of Mandamus to challenge the payment of TDS of Rs.3,51,000/by the first respondent and as collected by the second respondent as illegal and not valid.

¶27

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶28

The issue revolves around a narrow compass. The management has paid the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- as

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51657 WP No. 29076 of 2023

¶30

compensation to the petitioner. As the compensation is being paid in total lumpsum and taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in SUNDARAM MOTORS PVT. LTD. VS AMEERJAN AND ANOTHER reported in (1985) 1 SCC 118 and to satisfy the requirements of the law, the petitioner shall take the assistance of the management and its Income Tax Consultants and make the necessary application to the Income Tax Officer having jurisdiction in the matter at Bangalore for an appropriate relief within eight weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. If the application is filed by the petitioner, the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act shall consider the same following the law.

¶31

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶32

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶33

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16.1

Mr Shanth Gowda v. the Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Shanth Gowda v. the Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Chikkamma Vs the Mangalore Elecricity Supply Company Limited

The Executive Engineer (Elec.) Vs Sri. S. Seetharamaiah

The Executive Engineer (Elec.) Vs Sri. S. Umesha

Basavanyappa Vs Rangappa

Kevin Santosh Nazareth Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Indiramma Vs Gundappa