Allowed

State Bank of India v. Assistant Pf Commissioner and

Madras HC21 Sept 2021WP/5693/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order prohibiting attachment of salary by PF authorities. The court disposed of the petition by recording that PF authorities declined to attach the salary, leaving the matter open for further proceeding. The writ petition number was corrected during the order.

What did the court decide?

The prohibitory order No. CB/SLM/ 16260/RECY/K2/EPFCP.3/2020 is quash in so far as the petitioner bank is concerned; it is recorded that PF authorities do not wish to attach salary.

State Bank of India Vs Assistant Pf Commissioner and — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

State Bank of India
Mookandapalli Branch

¶7

No.310, SIPCOT Staff,
Housing Colony, Mookandapalli,
Hosur 635 126, Rep. by its Chief Manager. ...Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.Assistant PF Commissioner and Recovery Officer, Employee Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Steel Plant Road

¶10

 Thalaavaipatti, Salem 636 302.

¶11

2.M/s.Easun Reyrolle Ltd.,

¶12

 Rep. by its Resolution Professional,

¶13

 Temple Tower, 6th Floor, No.672,
 Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600035.

¶14

 ...Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the
records of the 1st respondent and consequently quash the
prohibitory order No.CB/SLM/ 16260/RECY/K2/EPFCP.3/2020 dated
15/12/2020 in so far as the petitioner bank is concerned.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The writ petition has been instituted by the State Bank
against the threatened order of attachment of the salary of a
bank official by the provident fund authorities.

¶19

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

¶20

2. The legal issue, which is common in a batch of
petitions, is to be decided when the batch is taken up for
hearing. As far as the present matter is concerned, the bank
says that in view of the categorical assertion by the provident
fund authorities at paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit filed
by them, nothing may survive of the petition. The provident
fund authorities submit that their interest should be protected.

¶21

3. It appears that the principal defaulting entity, which
had obtained credit facilities from the petitioning bank, is the
subject- matter of insolvency proceedings before the National
Company Law Tribunal and a resolution professional has been
appointed over the relevant company. The resolution
professional is represented and it is submitted on his behalf
that in view of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016, every creditor of a company which is the subject-
matter of any insolvency proceedings must make its claim in
accordance with the provisions of the said Code. According to
the resolution professional, the provident fund authorities have
not preferred any claim in respect of the concerned company. It
is the further submission of the resolution professional that
the main matter before the NCLT has been adjourned on the
representation of the provident fund authorities that the
present petition was pending in this court.

¶22

4. The provident fund authorities submit that they have
priority over the assets of a defaulting entity and, to the
extent that secured creditors seek to deal with such assets
without reference to the provident fund authorities, the
provident fund authorities have had to adopt appropriate
measures.

¶23

5. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
both the provident fund authorities and the resolution
professional, W.P.No.5693 of 2021 is disposed of by recording
that the provident fund authorities do not wish to attach the
salary of any official of the petitioner bank. Nothing in this
order will stand in the way of the provident fund authorities
enforcing their rights in accordance with law as well as the
resolution professional pursuing the matter before the NCLT,
also in accordance with law.

¶24

W.M.P.No.6317 of 2021 is closed. There will be no order
as to costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

sra

¶29

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

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The Assistant PF Commissioner and Recovery Officer,
 Employee Provident Fund Organization,
 Regional Office, Steel Plant Road
 Thalaavaipatti, Salem 636 302.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.B.Dhanaraj, Advocate SR.No.48777

¶33

W.P.No.5693 of 2021

¶34

GMR(CO)
RVM(29/09/2021)

¶35

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

State Bank of India v. Assistant Pf Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Assistant Pf Commissioner and

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. Muthusundaram Vs The Secretary

Madurai Farooq Ahmed Vs The Principal Commissioner

N.Sundaresan Vs The District Collector

The Karaikkal Pradesh Farmers Association, Vs The Union of India

K.Annamalai Vs Additional Secretary to Government

S.Prabakaran Vs The District Collector