HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.No.804 OF 2007 ORDER : The 2nd respondent is the contesting respondent. The 2nd respondent received notice but has chosen not to appear. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to this case. The revision is in respect of the calculation of the amount payable by the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor to the petitioner. The judgment debtor as well as the decree holder filed calculation memos. According to the judgment debtor, the total amount payable was Rs.6,36,447/-, whereas, according to the decree holder, the total amount payable was Rs.6,44,990/-. The judgment debtor deducted Rs.41,139/- towards tax deduction at source and deposited the balance of Rs.5,95,308/- . The learned counsel for the decree holder who is the revision petitioner herein contends that after the deposit of Rs.5,95,308/-, the judgment debtor still owes an amount of Rs.49,682/- and that no part of the amount can be deducted towards income tax. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is received or receivable by the petitioner is not income. The question of payment of tax and consequently the question of tax deduction over this amount does not arise. That apart, the calculation memo of the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor is incorrect to the extent of showing Rs.1,75,000/- as the amount deposited on 21.06.2004 and as the amount to be deducted from the awarded amount. The judgment debtor indeed deposited Rs.1,75,000/- to the credit of the execution Court on 21.06.2004 in accordance with the interim directions of the High Court in CMP.No.11818 of 2004 in C.M.A.No.1535 of 2004. However out of this amount of Rs.1,75,000/- , the principal amount was only Rs.1,00,000/-. The balance was the interest component. The 2nd respondent/judgment debtor therefore was entitled to the deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- only from Rs.4,01,000/- of the balance of awarded amount instead of Rs.1,75,000/- as shown in its calculation memo. The calculation memo of the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor therefore is not correct. The calculation memo filed by the decree holder has been perused by me. It shows the correct position of the calculation. The finding of the execution Court that an amount of Rs.27,634/- alone is due from the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor to the petitioner is not correct. The amount due is Rs.49,682/- as on the date of the execution petition. The revision therefore deserves to be allowed determining the amount due from the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor to the petitioner at Rs.49,682/- as on the date of the execution petition together with additional interest thereof from 21.11.2006 till today. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order in E.P.No.11 of 2004 is set aside to the extent of the amount due from the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor to the petitioner as determined by the execution Court. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent is due to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.49,682/- by 21.11.2006 on which date the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor deposited Rs.5,95,308/-. The 2nd respondent/judgment debtor is granted one month’s time to deposit this amount together with interest from 21.11.2006 till the date of the deposit, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to execute the same. ____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 15th December, 2010 PNV