Cgit award
Case brief
What is this about?
On 01.08.2025, the Tribunal dismissed a miscellaneous application allowing an adjournment due to the unavailability of counsel. Regarding M/s Leather Tec, an appeal against the dismissal of a review application was found to be within limitation. A direction was issued to the respondent authority not to enforce coercive recovery measures until the next hearing date scheduled for 19.08.2025.
What did the court decide?
Direction to respondent authority not to take coercive measure for recovery of the amount mentioned in the impugned order.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
D-1/32/2025
M/s Leather Tec vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi East.
Present: Sh. S.P. Arora & Sh. Rajiv Arora, Ld. Counsels the Appellant. Sh. Sunil Ranjan, A/R for the Respondent.
Order Dated-01.08.2025
The AR appearing on behalf of the respondent has communicated that Sh. Manu Parashar, ld. counsel for the respondent is not available today.
Record perused. Along with this appeal application for condonation of delay has also been filed. Office has reported that the same is within limitation if the period is counted from the dismissal of the review application. According to the appellant he had filed the application for review u/s 7B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act) within forty five days of passing of the order u/s 7A of the Act. However, respondent while rejecting the application has taken the ground that it is filed beyond the period of forty five days.
Considering the above facts, appeal has been filed within sixty days from the date of dismissal of the application u/s 7B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, the same is found within limitation. Therefore, there is no need to decide the condonation application. Let it be fixed for reply of misc. application filed u/s 7O of the Act and the arguments on 19.08.2025. In the meanwhile, respondent authority is directed not to take any coercive measure for recovery of the amount mentioned in the impugned order till next date of hearing.
Sd/-
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed by M/s Leather Tec regarding the dismissal of a review application under Section 7B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 is within the limitation period.
Whether the onus of verification of challans in the miscellaneous application filed by M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. lies with the respondent.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s Leather Tec
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Delhi East
- appellant
M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd.
- respondent
RPFC-II, EPFO Regional Office Delhi East
- appellant
M/s Medsave Health Insurance TPA Ltd.
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court