Partly allowed

Janyani Textiles Industries v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2

Bombay HC16 Mar 2023WP/3180/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of review application under Section 7B (reformatted, 50% deposit of Rs. 4,50,000 ordered) for violation of natural justice. High Court quashed order, allowed submission of proper review application within four weeks subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed. Petitioner directed to deposit 50% of Rs. 4,50,000 within four weeks and file review application in proper format. Authority to decide merits.

Janyani Textiles Industries Vs Regional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Diksha Rane 4-wp-3180-23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

DIKSHA DINESH RANE

¶4

Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date: 2023.03.18 11:21:54 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3180 OF 2023

¶6

Janyani Textiles Industries ..Petitioner VS. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II ..Respondent ------------

¶7

Adv. Samiksha Kanani for the petitioner. Adv. Gunjan Chaubey a/w. Adv. Vinay Kate for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶9

DATE: MARCH 16, 2023

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a review application under Section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereafter ‘the said Act’ for short). The said review is rejected on the ground that it is not in proper format and that the reason adduced by the petitioner to reopen the case under Section 7B of the said Act is not justifiable and acceptable.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

Diksha Rane 4-wp-3180-23.doc

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has remedy to file an appeal under Section 7I of the said Act.

¶16

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been given opportunity of hearing and that the review application is rejected on the ground that the same was not filed in proper format.

¶17

5. Considering that the order was passed without adhering the principles of natural justice, we pass the following order:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(I) The petitioner shall deposit 50% of the amount i.e. Rs. 4,50,000/- with the respondent within four weeks from today.

¶20

(II) If the amount is deposited, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.

¶21

(III) The petitioner is given an opportunity to rectify the defect and file the review application in proper format within four weeks.

¶22

(IV) The authority shall thereafter decide the said review application on its own merits and in accordance

¶23

¶24

Diksha Rane 4-wp-3180-23.doc

¶25

with law and expeditiously.

¶26

(V) The deposit is made without rights and contentions of either of the parties and subject to the decision that will be taken by the authority in the application under Section 7B of the said Act.

¶27

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

7. No costs.

¶29

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

Janyani Textiles Industries v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janyani Textiles Industries v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2

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

Vikram Rajindar Rajure and 7 Ors. Vs Rear Admiral K. P. Arvindan and 5 Ors.

Vrushali Sadashiv Helekar Vs the State of Maharashtra Dept of Tribal Development Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Gujrat Apollo Industries Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Anr.

Ragas Enterprises Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Director , Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protectidept.

Bahgyashree Nitin Chaudhari Vs Maha. State Electricity Distribution Comapnay Ltd. and Anr.

Suresh Vitthalrao Barge and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Anr.