Allowed

Yogendra Swaru Agarwal Prop. M/S. Maharaja Silk Mills v. the Regional Director, E. S. I. Corpn. and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Nov 2011WP/770/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Written by Justice S.J. Kathawalla disposing of Writ Petition No. 770 of 2006 with respect to a suit seeking a writ of certiorari to quash certain show cause notices and recovery certificates issued by E.S.I. Corporation for contributions and interest. The judgment held that demands for amounts covering periods already settled under an amnesty scheme are unjustified and quashed the notices and cer

What did the court decide?

Impugned show cause notices and recovery certificates dated 23.1.2006 and related certificates were quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.

Yogendra Swaru Agarwal Prop. M/S. Maharaja… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

hvn

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 770 OF 2006

¶5

Yogendra Swarup Agarwal, Proprietor, M/s. Maharaja Silk Mills

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

B.K. Srivastav, Recovery Officer, E.S.I. Corporation ... Respondents

¶9

Mr. S.C. Naidu a/w Mr. M.M. Gujar and Mr. S. Kulkarni i/by M/s. C.R. Naidu & Co. Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. H.V. Mehta for respondents.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA,J. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2011

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The above writ petition is for hearing and final disposal.

¶14

The petitioner has in the writ petition prayed for issuance of a writ

¶15

of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the show cause notices bearing Nos. 35/RRC/MRL. 9716, 9717, 9718/31-10341, dated 23rd January, 2006 whereby the petitioners were

¶16

¶17

called upon to pay the amount of arrears of contribution and interest thereon in terms of recovery certificates issued in Form NO. C-19, dated 16.1.2004 for the sum of Rs.1,38,472/-; second recovery certificate dated 16-1-2004 for the sum of Rs.1,02,548/- (Rs.33,023/- + 69,525/-) being interest thereon for the period August 1988 to December, 1989; third recovery certificate dated 16-1-2004 for the period April, 1988 to December, 1988 for a sum of Rs.30,931; and the fourth recovery certificate for the assessment and contribution for period January, 1989 to March, 1989 issued in Form No. C-18 dated 14-1-2004 for a sum of Rs.3,828/- which has also been challenged in this writ petition.

¶18

Admittedly, the petitioners were called upon to pay certain amounts for the said periods under the amnesty scheme which amounts the petitioners have already paid. This position is also clear from the order dated 5.9.2002 passed by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 1999 along with Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 146 to 151 of 2000. Admittedly, after the said payments were made under the amnesty scheme by the petitioners, respondents have issued suit notices calling upon the petitioners to pay an aggregate amount of Rs.2,35,951/- as per the above recovery certificates. It is pointed out on

¶19

¶20

hvn

¶21

behalf of the petitioners and in my view correctly that after the payments were made by the petitioners as required by the respondents under the amnesty scheme, the question of calling upon the petitioners to pay any further amounts for the same period does not and cannot arise. The learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that it is true that the demand made on the petitioners pertains to the same period as regards which the petitioners have made payments under the amnesty scheme. He submits that he does not have necessary papers to establish the subsequent claim made by the respondents through the impugned certificates and is therefore, unable to make any submissions in support of the said certificates. In view thereof, the respondents have failed to establish as to how they are justified in making the demands under the impugned certificates. In view thereof, show cause notice dated 23.1.2006 as well as the impugned certificates are quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶22

(S.J. KATHAWALLA,J.)

¶23

Yogendra Swaru Agarwal Prop. M/S. Maharaja Silk Mills v. the Regional Director, E. S. I. Corpn. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Swaru Agarwal Prop. M/S. Maharaja Silk Mills v. the Regional Director, E. S. I. Corpn. and Anr.

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

Harsharansingh Pratapsingh Gujral and 8 Ors. Vs Lokhandwala Builders Limited and 2 Ors. and T.S.Lokhandwala and 4 Ors. and v.L.Prabhu and 16 Ors.

Sabira Yusuf Chunawala Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Icici Ltd. Vs Bright Wires Ltd.and Anr.

Armour Chemicals Limited Vs Deepak Bhiku Pugaonkar and Anr.

M/S. Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation and 3 Ors.

M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation