Allowed

Bamboo Corporation Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employee Fund Organisation

Kerala HC1 Apr 2022WP(C)/8016/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged attachment orders against Bamboo Corporation Ltd.'s bank accounts for EPF defaults. Court granted further time for partial deposit and permitted the balance amount of Rs.59,72,000/- to be paid in ten monthly installments, while keeping the attachment orders in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Balance dues of Rs.59,72,000/- permitted to be deposited in ten monthly installments; attachment orders kept in abeyance.

Bamboo Corporation Ltd. Vs the Regional Provident Fund… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8016 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

BAMBOO CORPORATION LTD.

¶7

PB NO.20, ANGAMALLY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM - 683 574
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SMT.INDU VIJAYAN N.

¶8

BY ADV SMT.K.K.RAZIYA, CGC

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEE FUND ORGANISATION BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶11

2 UNION BANK OF INDIA PB NO.20, ANGAMALY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM - 683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

BY ADV THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 8016 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Orders Exts.P1 and P2 issued under Section 8(5) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Bamboo Corporation Limited have been challenged whereby in the absence of the compliance of the demand of Rs.38,95,626/- and Rs.30,77,141/- the attachment was ordered. Petitioner Corporation has filed the writ petition on the ground that it has suffered financial losses and is unable to meet the liabilities. This Court vide order dated 10.03.2022 caused interference while admitting the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- by 10.03.2022. The aforementioned amount could not be deposited on account of the fact that another account in which the money was lying was also attached and Writ Petition No.9696 of 2020 was filed, which was disposed of with certain conditions and the time granted by this Court in the order dated 10.03.2022 was enlarged by another week.

¶18

WP(C) NO. 8016 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

The order dated 10.03.2022 and 24.03.2022 reads thus:

¶21

Order dated 10.3.2022

¶22

“Admit.

¶23

Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent. Sri.A.S.P.Kurup, the learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 2nd respondent.

¶24

The petitioner, a public sector undertaking under the Government of Kerala has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P1 and P2 proceedings under Section 8F of the Kerala Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act').

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to severe financial difficulties faced by them they could not remit the payments due under the Act. It is also stated that if they are not in a possession to operate the Bank account maintained with the 2nd respondent Bank, the entire activities of the petitioner would come to a stand still and they will not be in a possession even to pay salary to the employees.

¶26

Accordingly, there will be a stay of Exts.P1 and P2 on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from today (10.03.2022).

¶27

Post on 05.04.2022 for the statement of the 1st respondent.

¶28

¶29

WP(C) NO. 8016 OF 2022

¶30

It is made clear that, the petitioner can operate the Bank account maintained with the 2nd respondent Bank with immediate effect.”

¶31

Order dated 24.3.2022

¶32

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 10.03.2022 ordered stay of Exts.P1 and P2 on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) with respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from that date. In fact, the other account in which money was lying was also attached and the Writ petition No.9696 of 2022 filed against that was disposed of with certain conditions. The amount could not be deposited as the said judgment is yet to be uploaded. In this view of the matter, the time granted by this Court in the order dated 10.03.2022 is ordered to be extended for another one week.”

¶33

Adv.K.K.Raziya, learned counsel appearing on

¶34

behalf of the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.10,07,290/- vide cheque No.787849 dated 25.03.2022 has been deposited and the remaining amount of Rs.59,72,000/an odd be permitted to be deposited in ten(10) installments.

¶35

Sri.Thomas Mathew, Nellimoottil, learned counsel

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 8016 OF 2022

¶38

appearing on behalf of the EPF organisation submits that he has not received instruction with regard to the deposit of the amount but do not deny the issuance of cheque and accepts the statement of Adv.K.K.Raziya at bar. It was next contended that the petitioners have been perpetual defaulter and the concession of the installments of 10 may not be granted. At the best, amount can be deposited in two installments by splitting it into fifty-fifty.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶40

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, considering the fact that the petitioner had deposited Rs.10,07,290/-, the rest of the amount of Rs.59,72,000/- is permitted to be deposited in 10 equal monthly installments commencing from 03.05.2022 till 02.02.2023. The order impugned are ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is found to be in default of

¶41

¶42

WP(C) NO. 8016 OF 2022

¶43

two installments, orders Exts.P1 and P2 will automatically be operational and the accounts referred to would be deemed to have been attached.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 8016 OF 2022

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8016/2022

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶53

Exhibit P1

¶54

TRUE COPY OF THE
PROCEEDINGS DATED
16/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.

¶55

Exhibit P2

¶56

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED 18/2/22 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Bamboo Corporation Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employee Fund Organisation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bamboo Corporation Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employee Fund Organisation

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

Sundaran Bhaskaran Vs the Building Assessment Officer

A.P.Kunhammad, Vs State of Kerala

Sherly Kuriakose Vs the District Collector

Theresa Jose Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Standard Tile & Clay Works (P) Ltd. Vs Sri.Raghavan.K.

Nasiya N Vs Dr.v.Venu I.A.S