NASIR JAMAL SHAIKH Vs. ABU ASIM AZMI
LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-398
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 09,2020

Nasir Jamal Shaikh Appellant
VERSUS
Abu Asim Azmi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard. It is true that the parties are in mediation for an overall settlement. In the meantime, there are three urgent reliefs that are required and these are in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) at pages 28 and 29 of the Interim Application: "(a) That pending the hearing and fnal disposal of the present suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Defendant No. 1 to clear his share of GST payments in respect of the partnership frm M/s. Citywalk Shoes, as per the details set out in Exhibit CC (50% of Rs. 33,53,940/- + interest and penalty) by depositing the same in Union Bank of India account No. 317901011013225; (b) That pending the hearing and fnal disposal of the present suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Defendant No. 2 to clear her share of Income Tax dues for maintaining the Appeal before the CIT Appeals on behalf of M/s. Shining Sun Constructions as per the details set out in Exhibit Z (20% of the demand to prefer appeal Amounting Rs. 37,71,744/-) hereto by depositing the same in Union Bank of India account No. 317901011013225; (c) That pending the hearing and fnal disposal of the present suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Defendant No. 2 to sign the cheques on behalf of M/s. Shining Sun Constructions for clearing the outstanding salary dues of M/s. Shining Sun Constructions as per the details set out in Exhibit G hereto and for clearing all outstanding salary dues that may arise in future in respect of the said frm;"
(2.) For the present, Mr Mehta restricts his relief even for today to prayer clauses (a) and (c). Prayer (a) relates to the 1st Defendant's share of GST liability. Obviously, this is urgent because there is a signifcant interest component that attaches to delayed GST payments. The learned Advocate for the 1st Defendant makes a statement that the same will be paid within one week from today.
(3.) So far as prayer (c) is concerned, at Exhibit 'G' is a list of unpaid employees from May 2019. There are only four entries for the month of May 2019, these being employees unpaid for that month. From June 2019 there are about 12 employees. These persons' salaries were paid up to April 2019. I can see no reason why third parties who have rendered services should be denied salary payments. If there is a dispute between the Plaintif and the 1st Defendant, it is always open to the 1st Defendant to recover the amounts from the Plaintif. In the meantime, the salary payments must be made on a without prejudice basis and the 1st Defendant's Advocate Mr Soni makes that these salary cheques will be signed on that basis within one week from today.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.