Remanded

M/S. Sivakumar Spinning Mills v. the Employees Provident Fund

Madras HC7 Mar 2011WP(MD)/1333/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Madras High Court set aside the ex parte order dated 29/12/2010 passed by the EPFO Recovery Officer. The writ petition was disposed of by remitting the matter to the first respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing both sides, due to the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to defend the case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 29/12/2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to pass orders after hearing the petitioner.

M/S. Sivakumar Spinning Mills Vs the Employees… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 7/3/2011

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.1333 of 2011

¶5

M/s. Sivakumar Spinning Mills Private Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director Mr.K.V.R.Kousigan Madurai Road, Sankar Nagar Tirunelveli 627 257 ... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

The Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Core – II

¶8

4^th Floor Lakshmi Nagar District Centre Lakshmi Nagar New Delhi.

¶9

The Recovery Officer Employees Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office Tirunelveli.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 29/12/2010 passed by the first respondent in ATA.No.765 (13)/2007 and quash the same as illegal.

¶12

For petitioner ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan

¶13

For respondent ... Mr.K.Muralishankar

¶14

- - - - O R D E R

¶15

Mr.K.Murali Shankar, takes notice for the respondents.

¶16

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 29/12/2010 of the first respondent.

¶18

The only ground on which the writ petition filed was that the said order was passed ex parte and an opportunity has not been granted to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner to defend his case. Absolutely, there is no serious objection on the side of the respondents.

¶19

In view of the above stated position, the impugned order of the

¶20

first respondent dated 29/12/2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to pass orders after hearing the petitioner as well as the other side.

¶21

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S)

¶24

To 1. The Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Core – II 4^th Floor Lakshmi Nagar District Centre Lakshmi Nagar New Delhi. 2. The Recovery Officer Employees Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office Tirunelveli. + 1 cc to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate, SR No.11665 W.P.(MD) No.1333 of 2011 7/3/2011 mvs. RJ/22.3.11 2p/4c

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S. Sivakumar Spinning Mills v. the Employees Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sivakumar Spinning Mills v. the Employees Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Lalithambal Vs Mr Ramanujam

Tg Krishnamoorthy Vs Pappiah Naidu

Hilda Mercy Vs M.Kutralingam.

Esther Jaya Rani, Vs the District Collector

Mrs.S.Revathy, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Dharmaraj, Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board