Disposed

M/s.Rajeswari Automotives Pvt. Ltd. v. The Regional Provident fund commissioner -Ii/ Recovery Officer

Madras HC15 Feb 2021WP/2473/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an EPFO auction notice for being contrary to the proclamation due to a clerical mistake. The respondent admitted the error and agreed to issue a fresh proclamation. The writ petition was closed without a separate order as the auction was dropped.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands closed; the impugned auction notice is effectively quashed as the auction was dropped by the respondent.

M/s.Rajeswari Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.No.2473 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.2789 and 2790 of 2020

¶6

M/s.Rajeswari Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, G.V.Adimoolam, 253, Perundurai Main Road, Erode - 638 011. ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II/ Recovery Officer,

¶9

Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, No.351/5, Raj Majestic, First Floor, Cauvery Road, Karungalpalayam, Erode - 638 003. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the file of the respondent in the Auction Sale Notice dated 21.01.2021 published in the Hindu and Dhina Thanthi on 24.01.2021 bearing No.CB/SL/96082/Erode/Recovery/2020-21 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.J.Sri Ganesh For Respondent : Mr.R.Thirunavukkarasu Standing Counsel - - - - - O R D E R

¶12

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the file of the respondent in the Auction Sale Notice dated 21.01.2021 published in the Hindu and Dhina Thanthi on 24.01.2021 bearing No.CB/SL/96082/Erode/Recovery/2020-21 and quash the same.

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner has challenged the auction notice on the ground that it is contrary to proclamation of sale and the property is sought to be sold for a throw away prize, which is legally not sustainable.

¶15

The first respondent filed its counter affidavit dated 06.02.2021, wherein, it is admitted that there was a clerical mistake in the Proclamation of Sale in the Form EPF CP13 dated 12.01.2021, which has gone unnoticed to the respondent. Without any prejudice to the establishment or the petitioner, they have undertaken to issue a fresh Proclamation of Sale.

¶16

In view of the submission made, it is clear that the impugned auction notice is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the impugned auction sale will not take place, as the respondent has agreed to issue fresh proclamation with correct upset price and proceed with the auction. The first respondent has gone further ahead that they are willing to offer the petitioner to pay the dues in installments. There is no necessity to pass further orders as the impugned auction has been dropped. Nothing survives for adjudication in this Writ Petition.

¶17

Therefore, the Writ Petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar asi To

¶18

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II/ Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, No.351/5, Raj Majestic, First Floor, Cauvery Road, Karungalpalayam, Erode - 638 003.

¶19

W.P.No.2473 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.2789 and 2790 of 2020

¶20

AJB(CO) CB(08/03/2021)

¶21

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

M/s.Rajeswari Automotives Pvt. Ltd. v. The Regional Provident fund commissioner -Ii/ Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Rajeswari Automotives Pvt. Ltd. v. The Regional Provident fund commissioner -Ii/ Recovery 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

S.Umakanthan Vs Union of India

M.Sudhakaran Vs Regional Provident Fund

The Management of Chemplast Vs the Presiding Officer

N.Sekar Vs Union of India

Jotheeswari v. Vs Ms. Sudha Devi I.a.S..

M.R.Palanichamy Vs The Presiding Officer