The petitioner sought refund of excess deposit. The court found the amount refunded before the hearing. The petition was dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3256 OF 2009
M/s S.M.Solar Products Ltd., Waluj PETITIONER
VERSUS
The Assistant Commissioner Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Of Act Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan Town Center, CIDCO Aurangabad
RESPONDENT
Mr.B.R.Kawre, Advocate for petitioner (Absent) Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Standing Counsel for the respondent
[CORAM : P.V.HARDAS,
and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.]
DATE : 20th July 2009
PER COURT:
{2}
[A.V.POTDAR, J.]
[P.V.HARDAS, J.]
drp/wp3256-09
M/s S.M.Solar Products Ltd.
The Assistant Commissioner Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Of Act Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan Town Center, CIDCO Aurangabad
P.V.HARDAS
A.V.POTDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
