Dismissed¶33

M/S Scorpio Engineering (P) Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2025WP/6213/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition; alternative statutory remedy; Appellate Tribunal (EPF) now functioning; Section 14B penal damages Rs. 8,63,078 for 2013-2018; Section 7Q interest Rs. 4,30,577; Section 8F attachment order dated 1-2-2022; Articles 226 & 227 certiorari; Scorpio Engineering (P) Ltd v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO Bengaluru; Karnataka High Court 2025; dismissal without expressing anything on merits; contentions kept open before Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner has already questioned the impugned orders before the Appellate Tribunal, which is now functioning, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. ¶33

M/S Scorpio Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs the Regional… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19510 WP No. 6213 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.6213 OF 2022 (L-PF)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. SCORPIO ENGINEERING (P) LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 'SCORPIO HOUSE', 132, WHEELER ROAD COX TOWN BENGALURU-560 005 REPRESENTED BY MS. KRITHIKA VELAN HEAD BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI S. G. ANANTHA BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶16

THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD BENGALURU-560 025.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:19510 WP No. 6213 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK COX TOWN BRANCH WHEELER ROAD BENGALURU-560 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. NANDITA D. HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 & 2, & SRI KEERTI KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3)

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30-9-2021 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO REMIT AMOUNT OF RS. 8,63,078/AS PENAL DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 14B FOR THE PERIOD 20132018 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE ORDER DATED 30-9-2021 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO REMIT AMOUNT OF RS.4,30,577/- AS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 7Q FOR THE PERIOD OF 2013-2018 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ORDER OF ATTACHMENT DATED 1-2-2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 8F VIDE (ANNEXURES-C1 & C2).

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:19510 WP No. 6213 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph No.15 of the memorandum of petition submits that the petitioner has questioned the orders dated 30-9-2021 and 1-2-2022 before the Appellate Tribunal and the

¶32

present petition is filed before this Court assailing the very same orders on the premise that the Appellate Tribunal is not functioning. Now, it is submitted that the Appellate Tribunal is functioning.

¶33

Under these circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶34

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the petition. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the Tribunal.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶37

KVK

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

M/S Scorpio Engineering (P) Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Scorpio Engineering (P) Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Banappa S/O Pandith Lakshmaiah Vs Sri D Thimmapaiah S/O Late Dasappa

Sri Lakshmana Vs Sri a Ramaiah

Chandrappa S/O Late Dasthimmaiah Vs Lingaiah S/O Dasthimmaiah

Jade Muniyappa Vs Smt Gowramma

Central Board of Trustees Epf Vs M/S Konega International (P) Limited

Town Municipal Corporation Vs Shri. Veeraiah S