Disposed

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

Bombay HC3 Oct 2024WP/3288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a recovery certificate issued under the EPF Act while its appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal was stalled for want of a Presiding Officer. The court granted interim relief restraining further recovery, conditioned on deposit of interest and Rs.1 lakh towards damages within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief per prayer clause B: restraint on recovery certificate action, subject to deposits of interest and Rs.1 lakh damages; notice returnable 23-07-2024.

M/S Sujyoti India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

wp 3288.24.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No.3288/2024

¶5

(M/s Sujyoti India Pvt. Ltd. V the Recovery Officer and Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, Nagpur)

¶6

(Vacation Court)

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM : Abhay J. Mantri, J. DATE : 31-05-2024.

¶12

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner is challenging the initiation of

¶14

recovery of the amount pursuant to the order dated 30-10-2023 as well as issuance of the recovery certificate dated 16-05-2024.

¶15

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that against the order dated 30-10-2023, the petitioner has preferred

¶16

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

¶17

2 wp 3288.24.odt

¶18

He has further drawn my attention to Sections

¶19

7-A, 7-B, 7-I, and 14-B of the said Act. He submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit the interest amount i.e. Rs.3506/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.

¶20

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.

¶21

That being so, I think, it would be proper to restrain the respondent Authority from taking action in pursuance of the Recovery Certificate dated 16-05-2024 till further orders. As such the order.

¶22

i) Interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ is

¶23

granted subject to deposit of the interest amount before the

¶24

3 wp 3288.24.odt

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

automatically without further reference to the Court.

¶28

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

¶29

( Abhay J. Mantri, J. )

¶30

Deshmukh

¶31

Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 31/05/2024 19:44:12

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Rajkumar S/O Samayya Potte vs Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sironcha Forest Division, Sironcha, Gadchiroli

Ashish Suresh Lonkar vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation, Marketing and Textile, Mumbai and Ors.

Sanjay S/O Namdeo Dhanokar vs Dipakkumar Narayan Sharma and Another

Mohmmad Iqbal Taji S/O Mohmmad Kalam Taji vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Mouda, Nagpur and Others

Yashwant S/O Dadaji Ambatkar vs Kalmana Market Urban Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Nagpur Thr. Administrator and Others

Dr. Dadaji S/O Ramaji Ambatkar, Since Dead Thr. Lrs. vs Kalmana Market Urban Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Nagpur Thr. Its Administrator and Ors.