:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.8420 OF 2006 PETITION NO.8420 OF 2006 PETITION NO.8420 OF 2006 Smt. Santoshkumari Ishwarchandra Khanna ..Petitioner V/s Canara Bank ..Respondent Mr.V.G. Mujumdar for the petitioner Mr.A.A.Siddiquie i/b M/s M.V. Kini for for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : A.A. SAYED, J. A.A. SAYED, J. A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. 1. Rule; by consent rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petition impugns the order dated 19th July, 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune, allowing the appeal of the respondent-bank and permitting the respondent bank to defend the suit and setting aside the order of Additional Judge Small Causes Court dated 8-06-2005 striking out the defence of the respondent-bank. :2: 3. The case of the petitioner is that the amount which covered the rent of the premises in question was not deposited in Court by the respondent-bank in its entirety, despite the order of the Court. The reason given for not depositing the entire amount by the respondent-bank was that the amount was deposited after deducting the income tax under section 194(I) of the Income Tax Act 1961 which is popularly known as tax deducted at source (TDS). The trial Court struck of the defence of the respondent-bank since the entire arrears were not deposited, but the same were deposited after deducting TDS. The District Judge Pune, in appeal, has set aside the order of the trial Court and accepted the reasons of the respondent-bank in depositing the amount after deduction of TDS. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that TDS is deducted illegally and unauthorizedly and the respondent-bank ought to have deposited the entire amount as directed by the Court. 4. I have examined section 194 (I) of the Income Tax Act and perused the impugned order and the :3: material placed before me. I find that the learned District Judge, Pune in appeal has rightly set aside the order of the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, and allowed the respondent-bank to defend the suit. It cannot be said that respondent bank had not deposited the rent. The trial Court was in error in striking off the defence of the respondent-bank. It may however be mentioned that the fact of deduction of TDS ought to have been brought to the notice of the trial court by the counsel for the respondent -bank at the time of passing of the order dated 14.06.2004. 5. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court so as to justify inference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed and rule discharged. 6. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-bank had failed to furnish the TDS certificates to the :4: petitioner. It is the legal obligation of the respondent-bank to furnish the TDS certificates to the petitioner and is accordingly directed to furnish the same to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)