MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, C.J. The concise facts relevant to the disposal of case in hand are that in the proceedings of a recovery suit an amount of Rs.120-Million was deposited by the petitioner in an account maintained in the name of High Court with respondent No.1, in pursuance of and compliance with a direction of the Court. The afore-referred account, though held by High Court, maintains the complete record concerning the particulars of the depositor and clearly provides full details of such amount so deposited by him. It is also worth mentioning that that amount deposited in the like case is always invested in profit-bearing schemes as a remedial mechanism against inflation etc., and readily finds support by the parties. Such deposited amount along with the profits invariably follows disbursement thereof either to the decree-holder or on the basis of final outcome of the legal proceedings of the suit, to any of the parties as per final adjudication or settlement, if any, arrived at between them.
2. This suit underlines an identical situation as it involves withdrawal of the amount of Rs.120-Million along with profit in terms of order passed by the trial Court on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties of the suit. The Bank has already released the said amount to the petitioner in keeping with the permission granted by the Court. However, the precise grievance that surfaced, hinges upon the premise that no certificate was issued to the petitioner with a view to authenticate the duration of period for the investment of the principal amount in profit bearing scheme and consequent profit thereof. It goes without saying that the Bank had already paid income tax duly deducted from his deposited amount, to the Income Tax Department, yet the certificate validating and substantiating that payment of income tax has not been issued to the petitioner, in order to facilitate him to reaffirm that the liability he owed to the tax/revenue department stood discharged in accordance with law and there was no further taxpaying liability in regard to the amount so withdrawn under direction of the Court. The petitioner had approached the office of this Court and the Bank respondent No.1 for obtaining the said certificate but despite being driven from pillar to the post, he failed to persuade the office of this Court in this regard, to eventually constrain him to file this constitution petition.
3. Although the office of this Court certified the petitioner as depositor declaring him entitled to obtain the certificate from the Bank; yet the Bank had rightly declined to issue the desired certificate in the name of the petitioner as he was not its account holder, and the issuance of any such document in his name was not consistent with the established practice and policy/SOPS of the Bank. The respondent Bank has to abide by its own policy as regards payment of tax, in accordance with law, on the basis of profits earned by the party found entitled, on account of the principal amount so deposited and invested in the given scheme. Since the Bank is under no legal obligation to provide information qua the quantum of profits earned and tax paid to the depositor, however, it is permissible to share such details to the account holder according to the Bank SOPs.
Such a situation entails unwarranted hardships for the party concerned whenever they need to render their liabilities of tax payment before the concerned revenue/tax collecting forums.
4. There is no denying the fact that the given arrangement of investing the said amount in some profit bearing scheme suggests an irresistible right of the petitioner in terms of the direction issued by the court. It is a well-recognized, established and proverbial legal principle of the jurisprudence that where there is a right, there is a remedy.
5. Since the High Court system is silent with regard to mechanism to resolve the issue in hand and there is no cavil to the proposition that no direction can be issued to the respondent Bank who is under no obligation to issue the certificates of tax-deduction concerning earned profit on petitioner's deposited amount inasmuch as the same can only be issued in the name of account holder with description of particulars of the depositor along with the amount of deducted/deposited tax, therefore, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction to the Additional Registrar (Judi.) of this Court to the effect that henceforth, in such circumstances, necessary certificates be obtained in his name as account holder, those original certificate be placed on and retained in suit file of the case, and certified copy thereof be issued to the party concerned for the purpose of its presentation before the income tax department, as and when so required.
6. In the said backdrop, this Court called upon the concerned Bank Officer to submit the certificates regarding profit earned on the deposited amount by the petitioner as well as the year-wise deduction of income tax thereon deposited with the Income Tax Department. These certificates ranging from the year 2015 to 2020 AD, six in numbers, have been submitted by him and made available on the file, therefore, the office shall do the needful in terms of direction issued supra.
7. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.