Disposed

M/S.Hall Mark Industries v. the Regional Provident and Fund

Madras HC20 Aug 2020WA/635/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a clarification order correcting typographical errors in a previous judgment dated 20.08.2020. The court deleted the word 'no' and substituted 'second' with 'first' in the direction to ensure the decision was lawfully attributed to the correct respondent. No disagreement examined on merits.

What did the court decide?

Correction of typographical errors in the judgment dated 20.08.2020 and issuance of a corrected copy.

M/S.Hall Mark Industries Vs the Regional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.A.No.635 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.08.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶8

W.A.No.635 of 2020

¶9

HALLMARK INDUSTRIES A-30, MEPZ, KADAPERI TAMBARAM

CHENNAI – 600 045.

.. Appellant

1 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

¶14

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

¶15

REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.3

¶16

RAJAJI SALAI, TAMBARAM

¶17

CHENNAI – 600 045.

¶18

2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶19

EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶20

7^th FLOOR, 60, SKYLARK BUILDING NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 019. .. Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.34540 of 2012.

¶22

Page 1 of 7

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

W.A.No.635 of 2020

¶25

For Appellant : Mr.V.P.Raman

¶26

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.R.Vishnu

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

We have heard Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the

¶30

appellant and Mr.R.Vishnu, learned counsel who had put in appearance on behalf of the first respondent.

¶31

There is no disagreement between the parties that the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order and had remanded the matter back for re-adjudication.

¶32

Mr.Raman, learned counsel submits that keeping in view

¶33

the fact that the learned Single Judge had agreed that the observations of the High Court in W.P.No.10788 of 2001 had not

¶34

been followed by the authority, the remand order should have been with a specific direction to that effect, and to that extent the impugned judgment be modified.

¶35

Page 2 of 7

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

W.A.No.635 of 2020

¶38

Having considered the submissions raised, we do not find any further necessity of interfering in the matter, but we expect and we also direct that the second respondent shall adjudicate the matter keeping in view the issue of mens rea as directed by the High Court in W.P.No.10788 of 2001. The second respondent shall dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months.

¶39

The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.8874 of 2020 is closed.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
20.08.2020
Index : No
sasi
To:

¶40

1 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.3 RAJAJI SALAI, TAMBARAM CHENNAI – 600 045.

¶41

2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 7^th FLOOR, 60, SKYLARK BUILDING NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 019.

¶42

Page 3 of 7

¶43

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶44

W.A.No.635 of 2020

¶45

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

¶46

(sasi)

¶47

W.A.No.635 of 2020
20.08.2020

¶48

___________ Page 4 of 7_

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶50

W.A.No.635 of 2020

¶51

W.A.No.635 of 2020

¶52

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶53

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶54

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

¶55

Heard Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶56

There appears to be certain typographical errors which have crept in paragraphs (2) and (4) of our judgment dated 20.8.2020. We find that there was a disagreement between the parties and, therefore, the word “ no ” occurring in paragraph (2) of the judgment appears to have crept in inadvertently. The word “ no ” shall, therefore, stand deleted from paragraph (2) and it shall be read accordingly.

¶57

In paragraph (4), the direction issued is to the second respondent, whereas the direction was intended to be issued to the first respondent. Accordingly, the word “ second ” occurring in paragraph (4) as a prefix to the word “ respondent ” shall stand

¶58

Page 5 of 7

¶59

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶60

W.A.No.635 of 2020

¶61

deleted and shall be substituted by the word “ first ” therein. Accordingly, the direction has to be carried out by the first respondent.

¶62

The judgment dated 20.8.2020 stands corrected
accordingly.
5. Mr.R.Vishnu, representing Mr.K.Ramu, learned counsel for
the first respondent, had appeared before us and has no objection
to this order being passed today.
6. Registry is directed to issue fresh order copy to the parties.
(A.P.S., CJ) (S.K.R.,J.)
28.08.2020
sasi

¶63

___________ Page 6 of 7_

¶64

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶65

W.A.No.635 of 2020

¶66

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

(sasi)

W.A.No.635 of 2020

28.8.2020

___________ Page 7 of 7_

¶71

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S.Hall Mark Industries v. the Regional Provident and Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Hall Mark Industries v. the Regional Provident and 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

N Selvaraj Vs the District Collector

V.Anbazhagan Vs The Chief Secretary

R.Vijiyaraj Vs D.Gautham

The Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs P.D.Sangeetha

M/s.R.M.D.Engineering College Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.R.M.K.Engineering College Vs The State of Tamil Nadu