Disposed

Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/13240/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner bank challenged the applicability of the EPF Act to itself and sought quashing of a summons for production of documents. The Court held that the challenge to the Notification is not required in these proceedings. Directions were issued to the third respondent to provide an effective speaking response within six weeks and examine the request under the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Directing the third respondent to provide an effective speaking response to the petitioner's representation within six weeks and examine applicability under the EPF Act; keeping summons proceedings in

Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs Union… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: December 07, 2018

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 13240/2018 & CMs 51523-24/2018

¶4

HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Ateev Mathur, Ms. Varsha Kirpalani and Mr. Kiran Bapat, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr. Ankit Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Keshav Mohan, Standing Counsel with Mr. Piyush Choudhary, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶9

A mandamus is sought to second respondent to determine the applicability of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the EPFMP Act, 1952’)

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

W.P.(C) 13240/2018

¶12

after following the procedure as prescribed in Section 7-A(1)(a) of the said EPFMP Act, 1952 . Quashing of summons dated 5^th November, 2018 (Annexure P-23) and respondents’ letter of 5^th November, 2018 (Annexure P-25) issued by third respondent to the Director of Income Tax is also sought in this petition while seeking quashing of Central Government’s Notification of 10^th February, 2016 (Annexure P-2) and letter of 30^th March, 2016 (Annexure P-10) on the subject of coverage of banks.

¶13

Upon notice, learned standing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that petitioner has not effectively responded to the summons (Annexure P-23) .

¶14

At this stage, learned senior counsel for petitioner points out that vide Communication of 22^nd November, 2018 (Annexure P-24) , petitioner had sought eight weeks’ time to produce the record, provided it is clarified that the records of which relevant years are sought. In this Communication, petitioner has reiterated that the EPFMP Act, 1952 is not applicable to petitioner-Bank.

¶15

Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that a detailed Representation highlighting inapplicability of the EPFMP Act, 1952 , was made to respondent No.3 on 27^th September, 2018. It is submitted that there is no response by respondents No.2 or 3 to the said detailed Representation of 27^th September, 2018.

¶16

At this stage, learned standing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that respondent No.3 has already given a response to petitioner’s earlier Representations of 22^nd January, 2018 (Annexure P-15) and 6^th

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

W.P.(C) 13240/2018

¶19

February, 2018 (Annexure P-17) . It is clarified by learned standing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 that petitioner has been called upon to produce the documents for a period post the Notification of 10^th February, 2016 (Annexure P-2).

¶20

Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the documents sought vide summons (Annexure P-23) would be produced before respondent No.3 during the course of personal hearing which be provided by third respondent. Such a course is being adopted because there is no response to the said detailed Representation of 27^th September, 2018 (P22).

¶21

Upon having heard at length, I find that petitioner certainly has a arguable case which requires examination but the challenge to impugned Notification is not required to be gone into in these proceedings as examination of documents ought to be undertaken by third respondent. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this petition and the applications are disposed of with direction to third respondent to give a effective speaking response to petitioner’s Representation of 27^th September, 2018 (Annexure P-22) within a period of six weeks and in any case, within twelve weeks, after providing an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, to produce the requisite documents in terms of Section 7- A(1)(a) of the EPFMP Act, 1952. The fate of the said Representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner can avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. Till it is so done, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned summons of 5^th November, 2018 (Annexure P-23) be kept in abeyance.

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

W.P.(C) 13240/2018

¶24

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of while not commenting upon the merits.

¶25

Copy of this order be given Dasti to counsel for the parties.

¶26

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶27

DECEMBER 07, 2018 s

¶28

Page 4 of 4

¶29

W.P.(C) 13240/2018

Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Delhi Transport Corporation through Its Chairman Vs Anil Kumar

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Lekh Raj and Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ganga Saran & Ors.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ram Chander & Anr.

B. K. Tripathi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kanijan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indian Wind Power Association Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Power and Ors.

Mgmt. of Cantonment Board Merr Vs Preetam Singh

Delhi Transport Corporation through Its Chairman Vs Anil Kumar

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Lekh Raj and Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ganga Saran & Ors.

Jyoti Bisht Vs Parveen Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Ram Karan Rai & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kajal Kanti Nath Vs S K Pattanayak, Secretary & Ors.