Facts of the Case

YWC Gym Management Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 18.08.2023 of the Additional District Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, in Execution Petition No. 256 of 2021 titled Anil Kumar Jain v. M/s YWC Gym Management.

The Executing Court had issued warrants of attachment against the petitioner's movable and immovable properties to recover a decretal amount that the decree holder (the landlord, Anil Kumar Jain) had quantified at Rs. 33,45,451, inclusive of arrears of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).

The petitioner contended that this figure did not account for a security deposit of Rs. 12,75,000 already lying with the landlord under a lease deed dated 06.01.2020, and that correspondence exchanged in June-July 2021 showed the landlord had earlier accepted adjustment of this deposit against the arrears. The decree holder's calculation separately included GST payable on monthly rent from April 2021 onwards.

This is a civil execution and landlord-tenant dispute; GST features only as one component of the money the tenant company was directed to deposit — GST payable to the government on rent, and TDS payable to the tax authorities — not as a subject of adjudication under the GST law itself.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's properties in execution proceedings should be stayed pending resolution of the petitioner's objection regarding adjustment of the security deposit.
  2. On what terms could the petitioner secure a stay of the Executing Court's order dated 18.08.2023.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The decree holder's quantification of dues did not account for the Rs. 12,75,000 security deposit already held by him, which correspondence showed he had earlier agreed to adjust.
  • The petitioner (through its Director) was willing to deposit the balance decretal amount of Rs. 14,96,704 by demand draft, along with the GST amount of Rs. 4,46,247 and TDS amount of Rs. 1,27,500 to the appropriate government authorities, and to file proof of such deposits before the Executing Court.
  • The petitioner sought exemption, for the present, from depositing the Rs. 12,75,000 already treated as adjusted, undertaking to pay it later if the Executing Court ultimately rejected the adjustment claim.

Respondent's Arguments

  • None appeared for the respondent (decree holder) despite advance service; the order therefore does not record any contesting submissions on his behalf, though the amounts and figures relied upon by the petitioner originated from the respondent's own execution filings.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court recorded the petitioner's statement and undertakings regarding the specified deposits and treated them as binding on the petitioner and its Director.
  • It granted the petitioner two weeks to make the payments and deposits as undertaken, on which condition the operation of the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 would remain stayed.
  • It clarified that any default in complying within the time granted would result in automatic vacation of the stay, without any further order from the Court.
  • The petitioner was directed to move an appropriate application before the Executing Court by 10.11.2023 placing this order on record, and the Executing Court was left to fix a date after 20.11.2023 to verify compliance.
  • The petition was disposed of on these terms, with pending applications also disposed of.

Important Clarification

This order decides nothing about GST law — the GST figure was simply one head of arrears the tenant company was directed to deposit with the government as part of settling its execution dues, alongside TDS. The substantive relief was a conditional stay of an attachment order in a civil execution proceeding, contingent on the tenant company making specified payments within two weeks.

Sections Involved

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – execution provisions governing attachment of property in Execution Petition No. 256 of 2021
  • Article 227 of the Constitution of India – supervisory jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner
  • GST and TDS referenced only as components of arrears payable, not as the subject of any GST-law adjudication

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of on negotiated terms rather than a merits ruling for either party — the petitioner secured a conditional stay of the attachment by undertaking to make specified payments (including the GST and TDS components) within two weeks, with the stay to lapse automatically on default.

Case Details

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. CM(M) 1805/2023, CM APPL. 57341/2023 & CM APPL. 57342/2023 (YWC Gym Management Pvt Ltd v. Anil Kumar Jain). Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. Date of decision: 06.11.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.