Single judge order disposing of the writ petition as infructuous following the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal setting aside impugned orders. No substantive legal principle defined.
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.
$~12
SURYA ENTERPRISES ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Vikas Sood, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted the certified copy of the order dated 3.11.2016 of the Employees Provident Fund appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No. 344(4)/2016 whereby the orders dated 20.11.2015 and 27.1.2016 of the EPFT having been set aside by the EPFAT.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner as was also on behalf of the respondent on the last date of hearing, i.e., 18.7.2017, nothing survives in the present petition.
In view of the order of the EPFAT in ATA No.344(4)/2016, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
JULY 21, 2017/sv
Central Board of Trustees Employees P.F. Organisation
Surya Enterprises
Anu Malhotra
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
