AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ld. Counsel for Financial Creditor as well as Corporate Debtor have appeared and pointed out in the order dated 24.01.2020, there are some typographical errors, in place of correct order dictated in presence of both the parties, the another order was pasted in this case, which was dictated in another proceeding.
In light of the submissions, made on behalf of the parties, we have gone through the records as well as Stenographer Notebook in which the order was dictated and we find that, on that day, the another order was dictated in presence of both the parties, the order as per dictation:-
"Ld. Counsels for both the parties have put in appearance. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed certain documents to show that the TDS deducted by the CD is also shown in the ITR filed by the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the CD submitted that he has not received the copy of the ITR filed by the petitioner.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it is an ITR filed personally by the FC/Petitioner so he may be permitted to give only the relevant portion documents which relates to the amount deducted by the CD as TDS. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner, since ITR has filed on behalf of the FC/Petitioner as per the direction given by this Adjudicating Authority and it is a personal document of the FC/Petitioner and this Adjudicating Authority want to see that relating portion of the ITR therefore, we think it proper to give only relevant portion of the document to the CD. Accordingly, the Petitioner/FC is directed to serve that portion of the ITR which he used against the CD regarding the deduction of TDS and when we think it appropriate that the remaining portion of the documents is required 10 be used against the CD then we can reconsider the prayer of the CD. The CD is also directed to file documents on the basis of which he has deducted the TDS after serving an advance copy of the same to the Ld. Opposite counsel. List the case for 10.02.2020."
But due to some typographical errors, some other order was typed. Therefore, the same is hereby corrected. In place of order "Mr. Prateek appeared on behalf of CD and seeks time to file his Vakalatnama along with reply. Accordingly, two weeks' time is granted to file the same after serving and advance copy of the same to the Ld. Opposite counsel. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner seeks one week's time to file rejoinder to the same. Let the same be filed after serving and advance copy of the same to the Ld. Opposite counsel. List the case for 10.02.2020" and it shall be read as "Ld. Counsels for both the parties have put in appearance. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed certain documents to show that the TDS deducted by the CD is also shown in the ITR filed by the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the CD submitted that he has not received the copy of the ITR filed by the petitioner.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it is an ITR filed personally by the FC/Petitioner so he may be permitted to give only the relevant portion documents which relates to the amount deducted by the CD as TDS. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner, since ITR has filed on behalf of the FC/Petitioner as per the direction given by this Adjudicating Authority and it is a personal document of the FC/Petitioner and this Adjudicating Authority want to see that relating portion of the ITR therefore, we think it proper to give only relevant portion of the document to the CD. Accordingly, the Petitioner/FC is directed to serve that portion of the ITR which he used against the CD regarding the deduction of TDS and when we think it appropriate that the remaining portion of the documents is required to be used against the CD then we can reconsider the prayer of the CD. The CD is also directed to file documents on the basis of which he has deducted the TDS after serving an advance copy of the same to the Ld. Opposite counsel. List the case for 10.02.2020."
In course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that pursuant to earlier order dated 24.01.2020, he has supplied the relevant portion of the documents to the LD. Counsel for respondent.
Ld. Counsel for Corporate Debtor/respondent is also directed to comply the order dated 24.01.2020.
List the case on 28.02.2020.