Allowed

The Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC8 Nov 2012WP(C)/9311/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging garnishee proceedings initiated against a bank holding Government funds intended for a coir society's revival. The court held these funds are not due to the society and cannot be attached.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P3, P4, P5, P7 and P8 orders of the Respondent EPF Organization are quashed.

The Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/17TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 9311 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,ALAPPUZHA DIST

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685 A BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR KOCHI-682017.

¶11

BY ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN,SC,EPF ORGANISATION

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No. 9311 of 2012 (L)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶16

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.37575/2009 DATED 5.8.2010.

¶17

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP NO.1009/2010 IN WP 37575/2009 DATED 25.11.2010.

¶18

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KR/KC/1812/RECOVERY/2011 DATED 20.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. KR/KC/1812/RECOVERY/2011/8893 DATED 25.8.2011.

¶20

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER NO. KR/KC/1812/RECOVERY/2011/14100 & A DATED 19.12.2011.

¶21

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.12.2011 GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. KR/KC/1812/RECOVERY/2012/15122 & A DATED 5.1.2012

¶23

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KR/KC/1812/RECOVERY CELL/2012/18988 & A DATED 23.3.2012

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶25

ANNEXURE R(a) : TRUE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT ATTACHMENT ORDER DATED 11.4.2012. ANNEXURE R(b) : COMPLETE EXTRACT OF SECTION 8 F OF THE ACT. ANNEXURE R(c) : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF W.P.(MD) NO.2873/2010 OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH).

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE.

stu

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

---------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 9311 of 2012 - L --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2012

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P4, P5, P7 and P8 orders of the respondent EPF Organization which is in the form of garnishee proceedings. The issue involved in this case is whether such proceedings as aforementioned can be taken against the petitioner bank in respect of amounts payable by Shertallai Coir Mats & Matting Co-operative Society.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioner that the funds available with the petitioner Bank is not an amount due to the said Society and is only a fund made available by the Government for disbursement for revival of the coir Society. This amount cannot be treated as an amount due which could be attached by the Provident Fund Department despite the right they have under S.11(2) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Section 8F of the Act gives power to the Provident

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 9311 of 2012 - L

¶35

¶36

Fund authority to attach any amount due to the debtor who defaults payment of contribution. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court dated 5.8.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 37575/2009 wherein under similar circumstances, where action was taken against the Manager for not attaching the amounts payable to a similar Society, this Court held that the money available with the Bank cannot be treated as belonging to the Society since it is only part of the funds under the control of the Government for being utilized by the authorities i.e. Government and the Bank, I am in respectful agreement with the above judgment and therefore this writ petition requires to be allowed.

¶37

However, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment in Madurai Bench of Madras High Court produced as Ext.R(c) in a case wherein when contribution became payable and such fund was made available by the Government for the rehabilitation Scheme of the Society it was permitted to be attached by the Provident Fund Authority. I do not think that I am persuaded by the reasons stated in the said judgment in order to take a different view

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 9311 of 2012 - L

¶39

¶40

from what has been taken in the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 37575/2009. In that view of the matter this writ petition is only to be allowed and Ext. P3, P4, P5, P7 and P8 orders are hereby quashed.

¶41

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶42

rka

The Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

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

Biju T. Nair Vs State of Kerala & Others

M/S.a.P.Varghese Vs Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner

A. Raveendran Vs Director of Urban Affairs

Kunjappan Vs the Plantation Corporation of Kerala

C.L.Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Bethel Cashew Company Vs the Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner