Allowed

Ashok Muthana v. the Employees Provident Fund Organistion and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2006WP/762/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order of the Recovery Officer/Assistant P.F. Commissioner for alleged non-compliance of notice provisions. The court quashed the order, remitted proceedings for a hearing, and directed a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 7.2.2006 quashed; proceedings remitted for hearing; petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Ashok Muthana Vs the Employees Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

APPELLATE

¶3

SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 762 OF 2006 .

¶5

Shri Ashok Muthana ... Petitioner. V/s. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & ors. ... Respondents.

¶6

Shri S.K. Talsania with K.S. Bapat i/b S.B.Shete for the petitioner.

¶7

Shri R.S. Sundaram with Shri Rajan for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J.

¶9

DATED : 20.3.2006.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Rule returnable forthwith by consent of

¶12

parties.

¶13

. Perused petition. Heard rival parties.

¶14

. This petition is directed against the order

¶15

dated 7.2.2006 passed by Recovery Officer/ Assistant

¶16

P.F. Commissioner.

¶17

. One of the contentions sought to be

¶18

canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no compliance of Rule 73 of II Schedule

¶19

Income-tax Rules and, therefore, the impugned order

¶20

is bad an illegal.

¶21

. Per contra, Shri Sundaram, learned Counsel

¶22

appearing for the respondents submitted that the notice was issued to the petitioner but the same was returned with the postal endorsement "Left". He, thus, submits that service of notice was proper. In his submission, there is a substantial compliance of provisions of Rule 73 of II Schedule of the I.T. Act. He has produced unsealed original envelope bearing postal endorsement "Left". Unfortunately, as stated, the envelope in question is not a sealed envelope. In this view of the matter, no

¶23

presumption of service in the eye of law can be

¶24

drawn.

¶25

. In the above background, both the parties

¶26

submit that without examining merits or demerits of the order, the impugned order be set aside and proceeding be remitted back to respondent No.2 with

¶27

a direction to respondent No.2 to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶28

. In the above view of the matter, it will be

¶29

opportunity to the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2.

¶30

Shri Sundaram at this stage submits that

¶31

considering huge recovery against the Company, it would be reasonable to direct the petitioner to

¶32

deposit some amount towards part payment to show his

¶33

bonafides.

¶34

While reacting the above submission, Shri

¶35

. Talsania,		learned	Senior	Counsel	, for the pet	itioner
expressed	his	willingn	ess to	deposit	Rs. 1,0	0,000/-
by way	of	deposit	with re	spondent	No.2. However,	he
submits	that	in	the	event,	petitioner su	cceeds
before	resp	ondent	No.2	in	establishing	his
contention,		amount	so dep	osited m	ust be returned	to
the	petition	er.	In the	event,	submission ad	vanced
by	the	petitioner	does	not	find favour	with
respondent	No.2	, it	would	be	open for him	to
appropriate	the	amount	so	deposited	towards the	dues

¶36

of the company without prejudice to his rights to

¶37

challenge the adverse decision.

¶38

.	Considering the above su	bmissions and taking
overall	view of the matter,	the impugned order	dated
7.2.2006	incorporated at Ex.	B is quashed and	set
aside	subject to deposit of	Rs. 1,00,000/- with	the
responden	t No.2. The	proceedings are remitted	back
to	respondent No.2 with	a direction to hear	the
petitioner	and decide all	the contentions which	the
petitioner	may raise, by a	reasoned order. In	the
event,	petitioner succeeds he	would be entitled	to
claim	refund of the amount	deposited. However,	in
the	event of adverse order,	respondent No.2 shall	be
entitled	to appropriate the	said amount towards	dues
of	the company. All	rival contentions are	kept

¶39

open.		The	responde	nt No	.2 shall not	act	upon	the
order	if	it is	found	to	be adverse	to	the	petitioner
for	two	weeks	from	the	date of co	mmunic	ation	of the
said	order.		However,	it	would be	open	for	the
respond	ent	No.2	to a	ppropriate	the am	ount	of	deposit
so	made	tow	ards	provident	fund rec	overy	of	the

¶40

company during this period without prejudice to the

¶41

legal rights of the petitioner.

¶42

. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on 3.4.2006.

¶43

. Rule made absolute in terms of this order

¶44

with no order as to costs.

¶45

(V.C.DAGA,J.)

Ashok Muthana v. the Employees Provident Fund Organistion and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Muthana v. the Employees Provident Fund Organistion and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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.

C.N.K.Pillai Vs M/S.Killick Nixon Ltd. and Anr.

The Proprietor (M/S. M.S.S. Fabrication) Vs Vijaya Rajaram Sakhare

C.H.Thakur Vs the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and Ors.