1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.294 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director, Madurai. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Santhamary 2.Minor Selvin Gnanaprakash 3.Minor Steve Fleming (Minor 2 and 3 respondents are represented by their mother and natural guardian viz., the first respondent). .. Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in Execution Petition No.66 of 2009 in M.C.O.P.No.134 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to raise attachment of movable passed in Execution Petition No.66 of 2009 in M.C.O.P.No.134 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The respondents herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.134 of 2005 on the file of the Court below praying to pass an executable award and accordingly an executable award has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.66 of 2009. In Execution Petition No.66 of 2009, an order of attachment of movable has been passed and accordingly movable of the revision petitioner has been attached and in order to raise the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the amount in question has been deducted only for paying income tax as contemplated in the Income Tax Act and in fact the same has been deducted and paid in the Income Tax Department and the Court below without considering the nature of act done on the side of the revision petitioner has erroneously passed the impugned order of attachment of movable and therefore the order of attachment passed in Execution Petition No.66 of 2009 in M.C.O.P.No.134 of 2005 is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has fairly conceded that no document has been filed so as to substantiate the alleged deduction made out of the total amount of compensation and also its remittance to the Income Tax Department. 5. Considering the representation made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, it is needless to say that no proper document has been filed in Execution Petition No.66 of 2009 on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent. Under the said circumstances, the attachment passed in Execution Petition No.66 of 2009 in M.C.O.P.No.134 of 2005 cannot be raised and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs. However the revision petitioner is directed to file relevant document in Execution Petition No.66 of 2009. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli is directed to pass suitable order after receipt of relevant document. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(W) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. smn C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.294 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 17.02.2011 TR : 01.03.2011 : 2p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/