Partly allowed

Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/S Mathruka Pracharanalayam Ltd. & Ors.

Kerala HC5 Oct 2009RP/937/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition clarified that a stay order on impugned notices applies only to penal damages challenged in the appeal, not to interest levied under Section 7Q of the EPF Act. Vacated the stay on interest demand but granted time to pay.

What did the court decide?

Vacated stay on demand for interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act; granted four weeks time to pay the amount.

Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 937 of 2009() -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24419/2009 Dated 25/08/2009 ....................

¶4

PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT

¶5

¶6

ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KALOOR,KOCHI-17.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE

¶8

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -----------------------------------------------

¶9

M/S.MATHRUKA PRACHARANALAYAM LTD., (JANMABHOOMI DAILY) XL/VIII/51, PERANDUR ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682017. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KUMMANAM RAJASEKHARAN.

¶10

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI.

¶11

THE REGISTRAR, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CORE - 2,4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINER, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110092.

¶12

BY ASG TPM IBRAHIM KHAN FOR R2

¶13

SC SRI.C.B SREEKUMAR FOR R1

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V.GIRI,J.

¶16

R.P No.937 of 2009 in W.P (C) No.24419 of 2009

¶17

Dated this the 5^th October,2009

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has filed this review petition contending that though this Court has permitted the writ petitioner to prosecute the appeal filed by him before the Appellate Tribunal challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the 3^rd respondent, the appeal itself was belated and the delay was beyond the condonable limit prescribed by the statute. It is also contended that one of the notices impugned relates to levy of interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act and the appeal would comprehend only levy of damages and not the interest.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner

¶21

also.

¶22

It is true that the direction to keep in abeyance the impugned notices, was intended to operate only as regards that portion of the demand which has been

¶23

R.P No.937 of 2009 in W.P (C) No.24419 of 2009 2

¶24

challenged in appeal as such. Other contention regarding the delay in presenting the appeal beyond the condonable limit is obviously one that has to be taken up before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶25

Accordingly, the judgment dated 25.8.2009 is reviewed to the extent of making it clear that the direction to keep in abeyance Ext. P2 will stand vacated. So also the direction to keep in abeyance Exts.P6 and P7 shall be confined only to that portion of the demand towards levy of penal damages, that has been challenged in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In other words, there will no restraint on the demand for interest made on the petitioner under Section 7Q of the EPF Act. But nevertheless, the writ petitioner shall be given four weeks time from today to pay the amount demanded under Section 7Q of the EPF Act.

¶26

Review petition is disposed of as above.

¶27

(V.GIRI,JUDGE)

¶28

¶29

R.P No.937 of 2009 in W.P (C) No.24419 of 2009

¶30

¶31

R.P No.937 of 2009 in W.P (C) No.24419 of 2009

¶32

Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/S Mathruka Pracharanalayam Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/S Mathruka Pracharanalayam Ltd. & 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

Trained Nursery Teachers Co-Op Society Vs Usha Titus

State of Kerala and Another Vs Trained Nursery Teachers Co-Op.Socy.Ltd.

K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Principal Accountant General (Audit)&Anr

K.Madhavan Pillai Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

K.Piyoose Vs Addl.D.I.G.P.,C.R.P.F.& Others

S.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs the Commissioner of Land Revenue