Quashed

M/S.Pce Electro Controls Pvt.Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer

Bombay HC18 Mar 2006WP/1358/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner's order declaring a review petition time-barred. The court held that limitation starts from the date of communication, not the date of the order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.3.2006 quashed; review petition restored to be heard and decided within three months.

M/S.Pce Electro Controls Pvt.Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2006 .

¶3

M/s PCE Electro Controls P.Ltd.... Petitioner. V/s. Asstt. Provident Fund Commr. ... Respondent.

¶4

Shri M.S. Topkar for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sonar for the respondent.

¶5

CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 18.3.2006.

¶6

P.C. :

¶7

. Heard rival parties. . Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Sonar

¶8

waives service on behalf of the respondent.

¶9

This petition is directed against the order

¶10

.
dated	11.3.2006;	whereby	Assi	stant Provident		Fund
Commission	er, Kolhapu	r, was ple	ased	to hold	that	the
application	for revi	ew filed u	nder	section 7B	of	the
Employees	Provident	Fund Act	on	24.1.2005	was	barred
by	limitation.	The limitat	ion	appears to	have	been
calculated	from	the date	of	the or	der	i.e.

¶11

29.11.2004 and not from the date of knowledge or

¶12

service of the impugned order.

¶13

.		It is needle	ss to mention t	hat as p	er Apex
Court	judgment	in	the case	of	Saibaba vs.	Bar
Council	-	2003(6)	SCC	186	the limitation	starts

¶14

running from the date of communication of the order

¶15

and not from the date thereof.

¶16

.		The postal endorsement placed on record (at
page	20)	does suggest that the order	was	del	ivered
to the	petitio	ner on 12.1.2005. In that	view	of	the
matter,	know	ledge of the order can be	impu	ted	on
12.1.2005	a	nd not prior to that.	Thus,	lim	itation
for	filing	review petition under section	7 B	of	the
Act	shall	start running from the	da	te	of

¶17

communication of the order and not from the date of

¶18

the order.

¶19

. On the above backdrop, the view taken by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner that the review petition is barred by limitation is

¶20

unsustainable and is liable to be quashed and set

¶21

aside.

¶22

.		In the result,	impugned order	dated
11.3.2006	is	quashed	and set	aside	and	the	review
petition	is	restored	to file		of	the	Assistant
Provident	Fund	Commissioner.	He	is	dire	cted to	hear
and	decide	review	petition on	its	own	merits	as
expeditiousl	y	as possibl	e at a	ny	rate,	within	three

¶23

months from the date of communication of this order.

¶24

. Petitioner to appear before the Assistant

¶25

Provident Fund Commissioner on 27.3.2006, who shall

¶26

fix the date of hearing.

¶27

. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order

¶28

with no order as to costs.

¶29

(V.C.DAGA,J.)

M/S.Pce Electro Controls Pvt.Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Pce Electro Controls Pvt.Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tukaram Gendeo Aglave and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dwarkanath Krishnarao Bagre and Anr. Vs Ratna Ramakant Tandale and Ors.

Vitthal Mahadeo Gosavi and Ors. Vs the Joint Charity Commissioner and Ors.

Infomedia India Employees Union @ Tata Donnelley Employees Union Vs M/S.Infomedia India Ltd.@ Tata Infomedia Ltd.

Dayanand Savlaram Mali and Ors. Vs M/S.Bayer India Ltd.

Avinash Dattatray Ohal Vs Nivrutti Balaji Davkhare