Disposed

Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Epfo

Bombay HC25 Apr 2014WP/2041/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged Provident Fund recovery order. Court directed continuation of sugar bags attachment pending hearing decision, ordered extension of hearing within two months, and lifted boiler attachment to facilitate production.

What did the court decide?

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner directed to extend hearing within two months; attachment of sugar bags continued pending decision; attachment of boiler quashed; impugned order stayed.

Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp2041.14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2041 OF 2014

¶5

Shri Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Purushottam Nagar, Tq. Shahada Dist. Nandurbar .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nasik .. RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr. P. V. Barde, advocate for petitioner.

¶9

Mr. K. B. Choudhari, advocate for respondent.

¶10

=====

¶11

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2014.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Petitioner is taking exception to the order issued by the Assistant

¶14

Provident Fund Commissioner, SubRegional Office, Nasik on 07.07.2006 directing recovery of amount of Rs. 2,73,91,757/ towards Provident Fund

¶15

dues.

¶16

According to petitioner, the unit was closed during the period

¶17

20012005 and no wages were paid to the employees. As such, employer is not liable to pay Provident Fund dues computed by respondent.

¶18

wp2041.14

¶19

¶20

Respondent is controverting the contentions raised by petitioner contending that petition is presented at belated stage after lapse of about six years and as such the same does not deserve consideration. Learned counsel for respondent also contends that in view of availability of alternate remedy, petition ought not to be entertained. It is the contention of petitioner that sufficient opportunity has not been granted by respondent before passing the impugned order. It is contended that detailed representation putting forth contentions of petitioner is presented to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 30.08.2011 requesting the authority to extend hearing and pass appropriate order on merits. The Provident Fund authorities have also issued warrant of attachment of movable and immovable properties and attached sugar bags worth Rs. 2,40,00,000/. Provident Fund authorities have also attached boiler of the petitionerkarkhana.

¶21

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to meet the ends

¶22

of justice, following order would be an appropriate solution.

¶23

The order of attachment in respect of sugar bags worth Rs.2,40,00,000/ shall continue until the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner takes decision on the representation tendered by petitioner, after extending hearing.

¶24

wp2041.14

¶25

¶26

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is directed to extend an opportunity of hearing to petitioner and take decision on the representation dated 30.08.2011, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today.

¶27

Attachment in respect of boiler shall cease so as to facilitate the petitioner to continue with production.

¶28

Respondent shall not dispose of sugar bags until decision on the representation tendered by petitioner and appropriate action can be taken subject to such decision.

¶29

With directions as above, writ petition stands disposed of. Order

¶30

impugned in the petition shall not be implemented and its implementation shall be subject to the order as above.

¶31

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶32

( A. M. BADAR ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

dyb

Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Epfo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Epfo

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

Mahadu Khandu Vanarase Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ahmednagar Social Association through Its Chairman and Joint Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Head Master, Sant Motiram Maharaj Vidyalaya and Another Vs Balaji Madhavrao Kure and Others

Bharat Ramesh Galani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Ganpati Nagare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Othres

Narayan Sahebrao Gaikwad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others