Artefact Projects Ltd. v. the Recovery Officer and the Asstt Provident Funds Commissioner, Employees Provident Funds, Nagpur

Bombay HC16 Aug 2024WP/3263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged PF recovery proceedings while its appeal under Section 7-I lay unresolved due to a vacant Tribunal post. The court granted interim relief restraining action on the recovery certificate, conditional on deposit of interest amount and Rs.1 lakh towards damages within two weeks, and issued notice.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief per prayer clause 'B': restraint on recovery certificate dated 30-04-2024, conditional on deposits of interest and Rs.1 lakh damages within two weeks; notice issued to respondents.

Artefact Projects Ltd. vs the Recovery… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 wp 3263.24.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No.3263/2024

¶5

(Artefact Projects Ltd V the Recovery Officer and Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, Nagpur) (Vacation Court)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Mr. A.J. Pathak, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : Abhay J. Mantri, J. DATE : 28-05-2024.

¶10

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶11

The petitioner is challenging the initiation of

¶12

recovery of the amount pursuant to the order dated 28-08-2023

¶13

as well as issuance of the recovery certificate dated 30-04-2024.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that against the order dated 28-08-2023, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the said Act') before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal at Nagpur. He further submitted that since long the post of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has been vacant. Therefore, despite filing the appeal he

¶15

could not seek any relief. Hence, he has preferred this petition.

¶16

2 wp 3263.24.odt

¶17

He has further drawn my attention to Sections 7-A, 7-B, 7-I, and 14-B of the said Act. He submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit the interest part of the amount i.e. Rs.3,46,620/- before the Competent Authority within a period of two weeks. However, the petitioner is disputing the calculation of the damages under Section 14-B of the said Act.

¶18

Having considered the said fact, it seems that, despite filing the appeal before the Tribunal, due to the nonavailability of the Presiding Officer, he could not seek the relief of grant of stay. The petitioner has shown his readiness to deposit the interest before the Competent Authority as well as part amount of Rs.1 Lakh towards the damages, before this Court, without prejudice to its right within a period of two weeks from today.

¶19

That being so, I think, it would be proper to restrain the respondent Authority from taking action in pursuance of the Recovery Certificate dated 30-04-2024 till further orders. As such the order.

¶20

i) Interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ is granted subject to deposit of the interest amount before the

¶21

3 wp 3263.24.odt

¶22

Competent Authority as well as part amount of Rs.1 Lakh towards the damages before this Court without prejudice to its right within a period of two weeks from today.

¶23

ii) It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply above condition, then this order shall cease

¶24

automatically without further reference to the Court.

¶25

Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 23-07-2024.

¶26

( Abhay J. Mantri, J. )

¶27

Deshmukh

¶28

Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/05/2024 17:45:14

Artefact Projects Ltd. v. the Recovery Officer and the Asstt Provident Funds Commissioner, Employees Provident Funds, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Artefact Projects Ltd. v. the Recovery Officer and the Asstt Provident Funds Commissioner, Employees Provident Funds, Nagpur

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Avtarsingh Mehendrasing Digwa vs Union of India (Central Railway) Thr. D.R.M., Central Railway Mandal, Nagpur and Ors.

Yusuf Imam Sukiwale vs Sheikh Baddrudin Sheikh Babu Laluwala and Another

Abdul Rafique S/O Sheikh Amir vs the Estate Officer, Nagpur

Siddharth S/O Sahdeo Sirsat vs Asma W/O Siddharth Sirsat and Another

M/S Sujyoti India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs the Recovery Officer and Asstt. Provident Funds Commissioner, Employees Provident Funds Org.

Krishna S/O Vasantrao Mahalle and Others vs Hirman S/O Chindu Aglawe and Others