Dismissed

Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Throu. Its Managing Director Ramchandra D Mahuli v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Collector Sangli and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2024WP/10646/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Auction purchaser challenged revenue notices for gratuity dues of factory employees and sought temporary injunction in a pending suit. The court held gratuity liability follows transfer of employer obligations and the Tehsildar's order was appealable before Revenue Authorities, so the injunction application was rightly rejected and the writ petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Throu… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

4-wp-10646-2024-final.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10646 OF 2024

¶5

SHABNOORAYUBPATHAN Digitallysigned bySHABNOORAYUBPATHANDate:2024.09.0618:38:58+0530

¶6

Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Ramchandra D Mahuli … Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector Sangli & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sarthak S Diwan for petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Priyanka B. Chavan, AGP for State-Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED : SEPTEMBER 6, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The petitioner (original plaintiff) challenges the orders passed by the courts below, rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed to restrain the respondents – Revenue Authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (the "Code") from proceeding with the notice dated 19th July 2019.

¶15

The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 520 of 2019, seeking a declaration and injunction, contending that the notice dated 19th July 2019 is not binding upon him. According to the petitioner, he purchased the factory, which is the subject matter of the suit, through an auction conducted under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The

¶16

¶17

4-wp-10646-2024-final.doc

¶18

employees of respondent No. 5 initiated proceedings before the Labour Court under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As a result, a recovery certificate was issued to the petitioner, demanding a sum of Rs. 1,71,750/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum, effective from 7th September 2018.

¶19

Based on this certificate, respondent No. 5 initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Code. The competent authority, under the Code, issued a notice to the petitioner, requiring him to pay the said amount in accordance with Section 174 of the Code. This notice is the subject matter of the present suit.

¶20

In the suit, the petitioner filed an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from executing the recovery notice dated 19th July 2019. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court rejected the application for temporary injunction, primarily on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce any material to demonstrate that he had not assumed responsibility for the dues of the employees.

¶21

The liability to pay statutory dues under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, remains with the employer by virtue of the transfer of gratuity obligations under the Act. Following the auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner stands substituted as the employer. Therefore, in the absence of documentary evidence or clear material showing that the petitioner is not liable for statutory dues under the Code, the courts below rightly rejected the temporary injunction application.

¶22

¶23

4-wp-10646-2024-final.doc

¶24

Furthermore, the action taken by the Revenue Authorities under Section 74 of the Code is capable of being challenged by way of an appeal under Section 247 of the Code. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited, and the order passed by the Tehsildar, being within his jurisdiction, should be challenged by way of an appeal before the Revenue Authorities. In my opinion, the courts below have rightly rejected the application for temporary injunction.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶26

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶27

Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Throu. Its Managing Director Ramchandra D Mahuli v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Collector Sangli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Throu. Its Managing Director Ramchandra D Mahuli v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Collector Sangli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gti Infotel Private Limited vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Chairman and Managing Director

Rajkumar Dattatrya Shedge vs State of Maharashtra Thr the District Collector and Ors.

Sukh Dev Singh Rawat vs Oceaneering International Gmbh

Priya Jayanand Parab and Ors. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Konkan Div. Belapur and Ors.

Tukaram Dnyanu Kadam vs Raju Ganpatrao More and Ors.

Pushpa Vitthal Magar vs Late Pandurang Kondiba Saste Throu. His L.H.