Allowed

M/S Hajee a P Bava & Co. v. the Central Board of Trustees

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2023WP/14304/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and quashed an order imposing a penalty on the petitioner for belated provident fund contribution. The penalty was set aside because it was imposed ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice due to lack of adequate hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 15.09.2017; Remanded the matter to the respondent to reconsider afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing; Petition allowed.

M/S Hajee a P Bava & Co. Vs the Central Board of… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 14304 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 14304 OF 2018 (L-PF)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S HAJEE A.P. BAVA & CO. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., HAPACO TOWER, #32, 9TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 104. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI. A.P. ABDUL KAREEM. …PETITIONER

¶8

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A. SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560 022. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.S. VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

WP No. 14304 of 2018

¶14

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.9.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the respondent at Annexure-C directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,30,534/- towards the charges for belated remittance for contribution to the employees provident fund for the period June-2014 to January-2017 is impugned in this petition.

¶18

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶19

In light of the interim order dated 09.04.2018, the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount before the respondent. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner did not appear on 11.07.2017 to participate in the enquiry and the impugned order was passed after placing the petitioner ex-parte and hence, the impugned order passed without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing the

¶20

¶21

WP No. 14304 of 2018

¶22

petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i. Petition is allowed.

¶25

ii. The impugned order dated 15.09.2017 passed by

¶26

the respondent at Annexure-C is hereby quashed.

¶27

iii. The matter is remanded to respondent to reconsider

¶28

the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶29

iv. The amount deposited by the petitioner, in light of the interim order is subject to the outcome of the proceedings to be concluded by the respondent.

¶30

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of .

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

RKA

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

M/S Hajee a P Bava & Co. v. the Central Board of Trustees

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hajee a P Bava & Co. v. the Central Board of Trustees

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunath Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri R H Siddammanavar

Smt M Jayalakshmi Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

M/S Fortland Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Berela Lalithamma Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka