Disposed

Shri. Sant Kurmadas Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. through S.P. Binage v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation through Its Assistant

Bombay HC28 May 2024WP/7767/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition seeking clarification of earlier order on deposits under Sections 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act. Court modified its prior order, directing both amounts be deposited directly with EPFO as CGIT-II has no treasury, and returned the invalid pay order.

What did the court decide?

Modification of earlier order: withdrawal of Rs.6,00,485 with interest; direct deposit of Rs.6,00,485 (Sec 7Q) and Rs.10,73,067 (50% Sec 14B) with EPFO; return of pay order.

Shri. Sant Kurmadas Sahakari Karkhana Ltd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

k 1/3 902 wp 7767.24 as.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7767 OF 2024

¶4

Sant Kurmadas Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S

¶5

Employees Provident Fund Organisation ....Respondent

¶6

Mr. Amit A. Karande for the Petitioner. Ms. Ranjana Todankar for Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 9 JULY 2024.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1 The Registry has placed this Petition seeking clarification with regard to the order dated 26 June 2024.

¶10

2 It appears that by order dated 28 May 2024 this Court stayed the notice of demand dated 15 May 2024 subject to Petitioner depositing amount of Rs.6,00,485/- (being amount under Section 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) ( the Act ) within one week and further 50% of Rs.21,46,114/- (being amount payable under Section 14B of the Act) within three weeks.

¶11

Page No. 1 of 3

¶12

katkam

¶13

k 2/3 902 wp 7767.24 as.doc

¶14

3 This Court disposed of the Petition by order dated 26 June 2024 as the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II had become functional by that time and accordingly relegated Petitioner to exercise the remedy of the Appeal. This Court proceeded on an assumption that Petitioner has deposited Rs.6,00,485/- and Rs.10,73,067/- in this Court and accordingly permitted Petitioner to withdraw the said amount from this Court and deposit the same before CGIT-II.

¶15

4 The Registry has notified that only an amount of Rs.6,00,485/- is actually received from the Petitioner and the Pay Order for Rs.10,73,067/got returned with remark ‘MICR invalid’. The Petition is accordingly placed on board at the instance of the Registry seeking direction for deposit of said amount of Rs.10,73,067/-.

¶16

5 I am informed that CGIT-II does not have any treasury in which deposit can be made. In that view of the matter, it is appropriate that both the amounts of Rs.6,00,485/- as well as Rs.10,73,067/- are deposited by the Petitioner directly with the Respondent-EPFO.

¶17

6 Accordingly the order dated 26 June 2024 stands modified by permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs.6,00,485/alongwith accrued interest. The Petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.6,00,485/- towards section 7Q of the Act as well as 50% amount of section

¶18

katkam Page No. 2 of 3

¶19

¶20

3/3 902 wp 7767.24 as.doc

¶21

14B of the Act being Rs.10,73,067/- directly before the Respondent-EPFO subject to its rights and contentions.

¶22

7 The Registry shall return Pay Order of Rs.10,73,067/- to the learned counsel for the Petitioner forthwith.

¶23

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2024.07.09 15:28:17 +0530

¶25

Page No. 3 of 3

¶26

katkam

Shri. Sant Kurmadas Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. through S.P. Binage v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation through Its Assistant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sant Kurmadas Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. through S.P. Binage v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation through Its Assistant

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

Shabbir Hussain Abdul Rehman Shaikh Thr. Poa. Kaniz Fatima Baig D/O Nawazish Hussain vs Addl. Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division and Ors.

Mayur Bajarang Hake vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivraj Subhashrao Umbarkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nirav Ashok Desai and Ors. vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Operative Societies Mumbai Division and Ors.

Rafik Hasham Mulla vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr Asst. Commissioner 'L' Ward vs Gaurav Gadkari and Anr.