Dismissed¶6

Dharamvir v. Hisashi Takeuchi

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2025COCP/750/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, Nidhi Gupta J (oral), decision 27.08.2025 — COCP-750-2023 (O&M), Dharamvir v. Hisashi Takeuchi: contempt for alleged breach of order dated 24.05.2022 in CM-2053-LPA-2018 in LPA-1203-2014 (Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer) regarding Section 17-B payment; arrears ₹9,78,539/- (up to 05.11.2015) paid 12.07.2024; income computed ₹10,495/- p.m., net ₹9,012/- after ₹1,483/- TDS, versus ₹8,840/- claimed (petitioner alleged ₹8,020/-); TDS on lump-sum payment per Sant Raj v. O.P. Singla (1985) SCC 349; refund route under S.192 Income Tax Act 1961; petition dismissed, rule discharged.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; contempt petition dismissed as meritless, rule discharged, and pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶6

Dharamvir Vs Hisashi Takeuchi — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; contempt petition dismissed as meritless, rule discharged, and pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent complied with the direction in the order dated 24.05.2022 to pay the Section 17-B arrears, in particular whether payment was complete and correctly computed (the petitioner claiming monthly income @ ₹8840 against alleged computation @ ₹8020 per month). +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The arrears of Section 17-B benefit for the period up to 05.11.2015 totalled ₹9,78,539/- and were duly paid to the petitioner on 12.07.2024; the Court found the respondent's submissions establishing complete payment meritorious and undisputed, so the plea of incomplete payment fails.

¶3-4

Ratio / Principle

Monthly income was taken at ₹10,495/- per month in the respondent's calculation (Annexures R-1/C and R-1/D); even after income tax of ₹1,483/- deducted at source, the net rate of ₹9,012/- was still higher than the rate claimed by the petitioner, so the plea of under-calculation fails.

¶3-4

Key takeaways

Deduction of income tax at source on the lump-sum payment does not constitute contempt, reliance being placed on Sant Raj and another vs. O.P. Singla and another, (1985) Supreme Court Cases 349; if the petitioner's income is in fact not liable to income tax, his remedy is to apply to the Income Tax Department under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for refund.ratio¶4
Finding merit in the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, which were not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court dismissed the contempt petition.ratio¶6
Rule stands discharged.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (COCP-750-2023 O&M) by Dharamvir against Hisashi Takeuchi alleging non-compliance with the Division Bench order dated 24.05.2022 in CM-2053-LPA-2018 in LPA-1203-2014 ('Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer and another'), which granted Section 17-B benefit from 05.11.2015 (date of stay of reinstatement), directed payment of arrears within two months and continued payment of last pay drawn. The respondent demonstrated that arrears up to 05.11.2015 totalled ₹9,78,539/- and were duly paid on 12.07.2024; monthly income was computed at ₹10,495/- (Annexures R-1/C and R-1/D), and even after TDS of ₹1,483/- the net ₹9,012/- exceeded the ₹8,840/- rate claimed (petitioner had alleged computation @ ₹8,020/-). Deduction of income tax at source on lump-sum payment was upheld per Sant Raj and another vs. O.P. Singla and another, (1985) Supreme Court Cases 349, with liberty to seek refund under Section 192, Income Tax Act, 1961. Held: the respondent's submissions were meritorious and undisputed; contempt petition dismissed, rule discharged, pending applications disposed of.

¶1

COCP-750-2023 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

206 CO C P-750-2023 (O&M)

¶4

Dat e of Decision: 27.08.2025

¶5

Dharamvir .… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hisashi Ta k euchi .... Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present: - Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocat e for Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate f or the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Pawan Mutneja, Senior A dvocate with Mr. Siddharth Gupta and Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocates for the respondent.

¶11

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The present contempt petitio n has been filed alleging noncomplianc e of order dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by a Division B ench of this Court in CM-205 3 -LPA-2018 in LPA-1203-2014 titled as ‘ M aruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Pre s iding Officer and another’. The operative p art of the order dated 24.05.202 2 , reads as follows: -

¶13

“Counsel for the parti e s have been heard but we do not find any reason to accept the stand as has been projected by the learned Senior Counsel for the nonapplicant/appellant. As per t h e provisions of Section 17-B, the benefit is to be granted in case there is a stay granted by the Court with regard to the r ein statement in service of the workman who has an Awar d in his favour by the Labour court. Present is the case w here the applicant/respondent No.2 has an Award in his fav o ur from the Labour Court with regard to therein statement in service but without back wages, which matter is pe n ding consideration in a writ petition preferred by the no n -applicant/appellant i.e. CWP No.11168 of 2014. The quest i on of back wages therefore do not arise. The stay of reins t atement of the workman was granted by this Court vide order dated 05.11.2015 and therefore, he would be entitle d to the benefit of Section 17-B from the date of the said ord e r till date. The said arrears be

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.29 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

COCP-750-2023 (O&M) -2-

¶16

paid to the applicant-respon de nt No.2 within a period of two months. The non-applicant/a p pellant shall continue to pay last pay drawn by the applic a nt-respondent No.2 during the pendency of the present a p peal or his superannuation whichever is earlier.”

¶17

It is submitted by learned c ounsel for the petitioner that although, s ome payment has been release d to the petitioner in pursuance of the dir e ction reproduced above, howe v er, complete payment has not been mad e by the respondent. It is also contended that income of the petitioner h ad to be calculated @ ₹8840 whereas the respondents have calculated @ ₹8020/- per month. It is a lso submitted that the income payable to the petitioner was not liable to i n come tax.

¶18

Learned Senior Counsel a ppearing on behalf of the responden t s opposes submissions made o n behalf of the petitioner and points out t hat the arrears of the petitioner for the period up to 05.11.2015 came to a total amount of₹9,78,539/-wh i ch has been duly paid to the petitioner on 12.07.2024. Learned Senio r Counsel for the respondents further ref e rs to the calculations (Annexu r es R-1/C and R-1/D) made in arriving at the aforesaid amount of ₹9,78, 5 39/- wherein it has been shown that a su m of ₹10,495/- has been tak e n as monthly income of the petitioner. It is submitted that accordingl y income of the petitioner has been asses s ed at a rate higher than that clai m ed by the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that it i s the grievance of the petitioner that in m a king payment of the aforesai d amount income tax has been deducted a t source. Ld. Senior counsel cl a rifies that upon the income of ₹10,495/-i n come tax of ₹1483/- has been d educted; thus rendering rate of income to be ₹9012/-; which is still high e r than the rate claimed by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel furth e r relies upon judgment of the

¶19

RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.29 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶20

COCP-750-2023 (O&M)

¶21

-3-

¶22

Hon’ble A pex Court in Sant Raj and another vs. O.P. Singla and another, (1985) Supreme Court Cases 349, wherein it is held that where the payment is made in lump sum, inc o me tax has to be deduced at source. Le a rned Senior Counsel for the re s pondent further submits that in case inco m e of the petitioner is in fact not liable to income tax, the petitioner h as the liberty to apply to the I ncome Tax Department under Section 1 9 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and seek refund upon determinat i on to this effect being made by the Income Tax Department. It is accordi n gly prayed that the present c o ntempt petition be dismissed being meri t less.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

I find merit in the above note d submissions of learned Senior Counsel f o r the respondent which are not d isputed by learned counsel for the petitio n er. As such, the present petition stands dismissed.

¶25

Rule stands discharged.

¶26

Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶28

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶29

RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.29 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Dharamvir v. Hisashi Takeuchi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamvir v. Hisashi Takeuchi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Attar Singh Vs Mahavir Singh and Ors.

Raminder Kaur and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar Pathak and Ors.

Satya Devi and Ors. Vs Daljit Singh and Ors.

Manish Garg Vs Ranjit Singh and Anr.

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs Maninderbir Singh

Smt. Ram Kala Devi Vs UOI & Ors.