Partly allowed

The Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Vilaschandra B. Agrawal v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola and Others

Bombay HC7 May 2024WP/1114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a section 7-A order of the EPFO on grounds of an undecided summons application and lack of hearing. The High Court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the respondent to decide afresh after disposing of the summons application, hearing the petitioner, and considering the cross-examination objection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned section 7-A order dated 12.02.2024 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.1 for fresh decision within two months after deciding summons application and hearing petitioner; no

The Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Thr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

71.wp.1114.24.odt

¶2

¶3

2024:BHC-NAG:5485

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1114 OF 2024

¶6

The Akola Janata Commercial Co-op. Bank Ltd. Akola through its CEO, Shri Vilaschandra Bhalchandra Agrawal .Vs. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-II, Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola and others

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Shri Vidit Lohiya, Adv. h/f Shri D.R. Khapre, Adv. for petitioner. Shri H.N. Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms M.P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATED : 07/05/2024

¶10

The challenge is raised to the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Akola under section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”), on the ground that, before passing the final order, application for issuance of summons to the witnesses was not decided though it was pending before the respondent No.1. Furthermore, it is submitted that no hearing was granted and the crossexamination was not permitted.

¶11

The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that, cross-examination was permitted however, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that the application for issuance of

¶12

C.L. Dhakate

¶13

2 71.wp.1114.24.odt

¶14

summons to the witnesses was not decided before passing the impugned order.

¶15

In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to the respondent No.1 for deciding the same afresh after deciding the application for issuance of summons to the witnesses and after hearing the petitioner.

¶16

As far as the objection as regards the crossexamination which according to the petitioner, was permitted by providing questionnaire, the respondent No.1 may consider the said objection as regards crossexamination before deciding the matter afresh. Accordingly, I pass the following order :

¶17

i) The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶18

ii) The impugned order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1 on the above referred terms.

¶19

iii) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.1 on 20.05.2024 at 12.00 noon

C.L. Dhakate

71.wp.1114.24.odt

thereupon, the respondent No.1 may decide the application for issuance of summons and the proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952, within two months therefrom.

¶24

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

C.L. Dhakate

The Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Vilaschandra B. Agrawal v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Vilaschandra B. Agrawal v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola and Others

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

Gurmukhsingh S/O Awantsingh Bashin and Others Vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Others

Noor Jahan Begum Hamid Khan, Secretary, Indira Gandhi Urdu Education Society, Lonar, Buldhana Vs Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana

Shaikh Maheboob Shaikh Ahmed President- Indira Gandhi Urdu Education Society, Lonar Buldhana Vs Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana

Sadulla Khan Abdulla Khan Vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola Thr. Manager, Vimlesh Shyamsunder Pande Vs Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola and Ors.

Jaideo Narayan Chiwande Vs Chairman, Women Complaint Redressal Committee, Maha. Housing and Reg. Devpt. Auth., Mumbai and Ors.