Disposed¶34

Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. v. the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi

Kerala HC25 Mar 2025WP(C)/12136/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPF & MP Act 1952; Section 8F(3)(ix) and (x); deemed defaulter declaration; garnishee recovery direction; Assistant PF Commissioner and Recovery Officer; representation pending consideration; time-bound disposal within two months; writ petition disposed with direction; Muthoot Fincorp Ltd.; Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy and Management Services; High Court of Kerala; WP(C) No. 12136 of 2025; judgment dated 25.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner) to consider Ext.P3 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment; writ petition disposed of with this direction ¶34

Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. Vs the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:KER:25432

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

WP(C) NO. 12136 OF 2025

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MUTHOOT FINCORP LTD.
REGISTERED OFFICE, MUTHOOT CENTRE, TC
NO.267/3022, PUNNEN ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER,
BINU RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED 52 YEARS,
SON OF V.R. NAIR,
RESIDING AT SWATHI,
KMRA 4, TRIPUNITHURA,
PIN – 695 001.

¶9

BY ADVS.
B.ASHOK SHENOY
P.S.GIREESH
ARJUN R NAIK
UMASANKER U.U.
ADITYA A. SHENOY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
NEW DELHI
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14,
BHIKAIJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI,
PIN – 110 066.
2THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN – 695 004.

¶12

2025:KER:25432

¶13

WP(C) NO.12136 OF 2025

¶14

2

¶15

3THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND
RECOVERY OFFICER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN – 695 004.

¶16

SRI. P.G. JAYASHANKAR - SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2025:KER:25432

¶19

WP(C) NO.12136 OF 2025

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in Non Banking Finance business. It is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’). By Ext.P1 order issued by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.24,24,27,445/- from the amount payable by the petitioner to M/s.Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy and Management Services in the capacity of garnishee. The petitioner informed the 3^rd respondent that no amounts are payable by the

¶23

petitioner to M/s.Muthoot Pappachan

¶24

2025:KER:25432

¶25

WP(C) NO.12136 OF 2025

¶26

¶27

Consultancy and Management Services and that the petitioner cannot be considered as a garnishee. However, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P2 proceedings declaring the petitioner as deemed defaulter under Section 8F(3) (ix) and (x) of the Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 representation before the 2^nd respondent. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P3.

¶28

Heard Sri.Ashok Shenoy, the learned

¶29

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶30

In the facts and circumstances of the

¶31

case and having regard to the submissions made across the Bar, there will be a direction to

¶32

2025:KER:25432

¶33

WP(C) NO.12136 OF 2025
5

¶34

the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of with the

¶36

above direction.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶39

SPR

¶40

WP(C) NO.12136 OF 2025

2025:KER:25432

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :-

¶45

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE` `COPY` `KR/TVM/16159/RECOV` `31.08.2017 ISSUED` `PETITIONER.`	`OF` `ERY/2017` `BY 3RD`	`ORDER` `-18/4483` `RESPONDE`	`NO.` `DATED` `NT TO`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE` `COPY` `NO.KR/TVM/16159/RE` `DATED 28.01.2019` `RESPONDENT.`	`OF` `COVERY/2` `ISSUED`	`PROCE` `018-19/98` `BY THE`	`EDINGS` `24` `3RD`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `29.01.2024 SUBMIT` `RESPONDENTS NOS.1`	`REPRESEN` `TED BY` `AND 2.`	`TATION` `PETITION`	`DATED` `ER TO`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTE` `SUBMITTED BY PETIT` `NOS.1 AND 2.`	`R DATED` `IONER TO`	`13.05.202` `RESPONDE`	`4` `NTS`

¶46

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. v. the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. v. the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mar Baselios Institute of Technology and Science Vs State of Kerala

Pushpavally Vs the Special Sale Officer

Ajukumar, Vs the Sale Officer

The Kerala State Co-Operative Coir Marketing Federation Vs v.Viswakumar

Unnikrishnan Vs Special Sale Officer

Shiju K G Vs Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Kerala Bank)