Disposed

M/s.Sowparnika Fashions v. The Authorised Officer/

Madras HC1 Jun 2017WP/43301/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging EPFO recovery proceedings. Instead of quashing the proceedings, the court directed the petitioner to attend the pending enquiry within four weeks, submit documents, and allowed the authorities time to finalize the matter without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to attend enquiry within four weeks and submit documents; impugned order set aside; petition disposed of.

M/s.Sowparnika Fashions Vs The Authorised Officer/ — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.06.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No. 43301 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.37140 of 2016

¶6

M/s. Sowparnika Fashions rep. By its Proprietor Jeevan Kumar ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Authorised Officer/Regional Provident

¶9

Fund Commissioner-II, Regional Office, No.37, EPFO, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014.

¶10

The Recovery Officer, Office of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, No.37, Royapettah High Road,

¶11

Chennai – 600 014.

¶12

The Enforcement Officer(Recovery),

¶13

No.37, EPFO, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014. ..Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records issued by the 2^nd respondent vide E.P.F.C.P. 1 No.

¶15

TN/CHN/Recy/CP1/TN/26605/Regl/2016 dated 17.11.2016 and quash the same, and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to conduct enquiry afresh affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Srinivasan

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Sundaram

¶18

Seeking to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 17.11.2016 and to direct the first respondent to conduct enquiry afresh affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

¶19

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

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶21

The issue sought to be raised in the writ petition is with respect to the identity. According to the petitioner, it has got nothing to do with the original demand followed by the adjudication as it is a separate entity. Under those circumstances, the petitioner made representation on 18.11.2016. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the said representation, an enquiry has already been initiated and the petitioner was asked to attend the same, as seen from the proceedings in TN/MAS/26605/Recy/Regl/2016 dated 14.12.2016. However, the petitioner has not attended the enquiry scheduled to be held on 6.01.2017 in view of the pendency of the writ petition.

¶22

There is no need to keep the writ petition pending since, admittedly the enquiry is pending. In such view of the matter, the petition is directed to attend the enquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and furnish all the documents sought for apart from putting forth its case. Thereafter, appropriate orders will have to be passed within a period of four weeks.

¶23

In such view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar mmi/gsa

¶24

¶25

The Authorised Officer Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Regional Office, No.37, EPFO, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014.

¶26

The Recovery Officer, Office of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, No.37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014.

¶27

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

¶28

The Enforcement Officer(Recovery), No.37, EPFO, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014.

¶29

+2cc to Mr.T.R.Sundaran, Advocate in Sr.No.38290

¶30

+1cc to Mr.S.P.Srinivasan, Advocate in Sr.No.38277

¶31

W.P.No. 43301 of 2016

¶32

NR(12/06/2017)

¶33

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

M/s.Sowparnika Fashions v. The Authorised Officer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sowparnika Fashions v. The Authorised Officer/

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

Navayuga Infotech Private Ltd. Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity

M.Thentamizan Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Asokan Vs The Inspector of Police

Hale & Healthy Corporation Vs Dr.P.Kannan

Dr.K.v.S.Kumar, Vs The Principal Secretary

S.P.Nanjappan Vs The Chairman