Disposed

M/S. Technomax Engineering Products v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolhapur

Bombay HC3 Aug 2007WP/3026/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner complained that his review application regarding a Provident Fund order was still pending. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to hear the petitioner on the review application and dispose of it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to hear the petitioner and dispose of the review application within three months.

M/S. Technomax Engineering Products Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3026 OF2007

¶3

 M/s. Technomax Engineering Products
 through its Partner
 Amol Shankar Kalburgi ..Petitioner.
 Vs.

¶4

 Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ..Respondent.

¶5

 Mr.R.P.Walvekar, adv. for the Petitioner.

¶6

CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J.
DATE : AUGUST 3, 2007.

¶7

 P.C.:

¶8

 1. Heard Mr. Walvekar the learned counsel for the
 petitioner. None for the respondents.

¶9

 2. The respondent, who is Assistant Provident Fund
 Commissioner passed an order dated 29-9-2004 directing
 the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.2,55,160/- on
 account of provident fund, family pension fund and
 insurance fund contribution and the administrative
 charges for the period from September, 2001 to August,
 2004. The petitioner after receiving that order made
 an application dated 14th December, 2004 for review of
 that order contending that the petitioner had already
 submitted conciliation statements of the relevant

¶10

 provident funds and had also made all the payments. In
 support of this, the petitioner also submitted copies
 of the relevant documents. The grievance of the

¶11

:2:

¶12

 petitioner is that review application dated 14th
 December, 2004 is not yet decided by the respondents.

¶13

 3. In my opinion taking into consideration the
 grievance, the petition may be disposed off with the
 following directions.

¶14

 4. The respondent shall hear the petitioner and
 passed the appropriate order on the review application
 dated 14th December, 2004 in the light of evidence
 placed by the petitioner before him. The review
 application may be disposed off within three months
 from this date.

¶15

 5. Petition stands disposed off.

¶16

[J.H.BHATIA, J.]

M/S. Technomax Engineering Products v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolhapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Technomax Engineering Products v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolhapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyanoba Bhimrao Gadave

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mr. Ganesh Ramchandra Naik and Ors.

Vivek Shridhar Desai Vs Vidhi @ Shipa Vivek Desai

M/S. Chhotalal Keshavji Shah Vs J.R. Nazir and Ors.

Chavgonda Balgonda Patil and Anr. Vs Chandrabai Kalgoda Patil and Anr.

Krishnabai Ganpatrao Bhosle and Anr. Vs Madhavrao Anandrao Kadam and Ors.