Allowed

Central Provident Fund Commissioner v. K.Natarajan

Madras HC28 Jul 2020CMP/6179/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the raises the High Court to the petitioners' motion to condone the delay of 282 days in filing the appeal, finding that the explanation provided was sufficient. Consequently, the writ appeal was treated as being within time and regenerated number.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 282 days in preferring the appeal in W.A. SR No.28717 of 2020 is condoned; the appeal is treated as within time and given regular number.

Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs K.Natarajan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.M.P.No.6179 of 2020 in W.A.No. SR 28717 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.07.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶8

C.M.P.No.6179 of 2020 in W.A.No. SR 28717 of 2020

¶9

1 THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

¶10

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

¶11

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

¶12

GOVT. OF INDIA, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066

¶13

2 THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER HQ (PENSION)

¶14

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

¶15

BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN

¶16

14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066

¶17

3 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I (PENSION)

¶18

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

¶19

BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN

¶20

14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066

¶21

4 THE ADDITIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION

¶22

37, ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD

¶23

CHENNAI – 600 014.

¶24

5 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,

¶25

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,

¶26

37, ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI – 600 014.

¶27

... Petitioners

¶28

¶29

___________ Page 1 of 4_

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

C.M.P.No.6179 of 2020 in W.A.No. SR 28717 of 2020

1.K.NATARAJAN

2.T.RAMASAMY

3.K.BALASUBRAMANIAM

4.K.PERUMAL

5.R.MALLIGA

6.N.THIMMAPPAN

7.M.ARUMUGAM

8.K.BHEEMAN

9.S.NARAYANAN

10.P.GOVINDAN

11.V.CHINNASAMY

12.T.KONDRI GOUNDER 13.P.MANIKAM 14.B.VENKATESAN 15.N.VENKATACHALAM 16.M.NARAYANAN

¶44

17.GUNALAN 18.M.MURUGAN 19.R.SADANANDHAN

¶45

20.R.MANOHARAN 21.V.CHINNA THAMBI 22.C.JAGANATHAN

¶46

23.UNION OF INDIA

¶47

REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG

¶48

NEW DELHI – 110 001

¶49

24.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶50

TAMIL NADU CIVI SUPPLIES CORPORATION 12, THAMBUSAMY ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI – 600 010

¶51

25.THE MANAGING TRUSTEE,

¶52

TNCSC EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND TRUST, TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION 12, THAMBUSAMY ROAD, KILPAUK CHENNAI – 600 010. ... Respondents

¶53

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 282 days in preferring the appeal in W.A. SR No.28717 of 2020.

¶54

___________ Page 2 of 4_

¶55

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶56

C.M.P.No.6179 of 2020 in W.A.No. SR 28717 of 2020

¶57

For Petitioners : Mr.Kunjithapatam Ramu

¶58

For Respondents : Mr.Arun Dhanapalan for respondent Nos.1 to 22

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶61

We have heard Mr.Kunjithapatam Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Arun Dhanapalan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 22.

¶62

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay is, accordingly, condoned.

¶63

The Writ Appeal shall be treated to be within time and shall be given the regular number and tagged along with W.A.No.3501 of 2019.

¶64

(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.) 28.07.2020

¶65

bbr

¶66

___________ Page 3 of 4_

¶67

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶68

C.M.P.No.6179 of 2020 in W.A.No. SR 28717 of 2020

¶69

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶70

bbr

¶71

C.M.P.No.6179 of 2020
in W.A.No. SR 28717 of 2020
28.07.2020

¶72

___________ Page 4 of 4_

¶73

http://www.judis.nic.in

Central Provident Fund Commissioner v. K.Natarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Provident Fund Commissioner v. K.Natarajan

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

The Commandant Vs Babitha

The Chief Educational Officer Vs G.Govindhasamy

Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Subramaniyan

Addl.Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs K.Karunakar

S.Tulasi Ammal Vs the Principal Secretary

Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan Vs Union of India