Disposed

O.a.a.Ananthapadmanaban v. the Recovery Officer

Madras HC24 Oct 2024WP(MD)/3646/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Attachment order by PF authorities for dues of Sri Seetha Venkatesh Mills Limited against the then Managing Director's properties was challenged; petitioner had died and respondents said dues were collected from establishment's immovable property with only recovery charges outstanding.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to issue notice to legal heirs and pass appropriate orders after determining liability; no costs.

O.a.a.Ananthapadmanaban Vs the Recovery Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)No.3646 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.3646 of 2018 and WMP(MD)Nos.3767, 3768 of 2018

¶7

O.A.A.Ananthapadmanaban .. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Recovery Officer, The Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, R-40A I, TNHB Shopping cum Office Complex, Mogappair Road, Mogappair East, Chennai – 600 037.

¶10

2.The Recovery Officer, The Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Madurai. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents 1 & 2 relating to the Certificate of Attachment of movable property of the petitioner bearing

¶12

1/5

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

WP(MD)No.3646 of 2018

¶15

No.TN/SRO/AMB/1189/RRC's/2016, dated 19.08.2016 bearing No.EPF CP 16, of the first respondent and the notices for settlement of proclamation

¶16

bearing No.EPFCP 17, dated 30.10.2017 and

¶17

No.MD/MDU/RO/RECY/TN/AMB/1189/CP-17, dated 22.11.2017 of the second respondent, quash the same and consequently, forbear the respondents from initiating proceedings against the personal assets of the Managing Director / Directors of the Company for recovery of dues payable by Sri Seetha Venkatesh Mills Limited, Kathirvedu Village, Saidapet Taluk, Puzhal Post, Chennai.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mahadevan For Respondents : Mr.V.S.Karthi

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The order of attachment passed by the PF Authority for the liabilities of M/s.Sri Seetha Venkatesh Mills Limited is challenged in this writ petition.

¶22

2/5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

WP(MD)No.3646 of 2018

¶25

2.The contention of the petitioner is that for the liabilities of the

¶26

Company, proceedings was initiated as against the personal properties of the then Managing Director of the Company. It is also reported that the petitioner / Managing Director has passed away.

¶27

3.Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, by referring to the

¶28

counter affidavit filed by the respondents, submitted that the entire dues have been collected from the immovable properties of the petitioner's establishment and not from the personal properties of the petitioner. He further submitted that no final recovery action has been taken by the second respondent u/s.8B to 8G of the Act, by putting the attached immovable property of the petitioner in public auction to liquidate the dues payable by the petitioner establishment. He further submitted that the petitioner is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.21,500/- towards the recovery charges and on receipt of the said charge, the respondents would lift the attachment of the petitioner's immovable property.

¶29

3/5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP(MD)No.3646 of 2018

¶32

4.Considering the nature of attachment, that the petitioner is also no

¶33

more and the quantum of charge still liable to be paid, this writ petition stands disposed of, with a direction to the respondents / PF Authorities to issue notice to the legal heirs of the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders, after determining the liability of the Company, the Managing Director and the legal heirs.

¶34

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

Index : Yes / No 24.10.2024 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes gk

¶36

4/5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

WP(MD)No.3646 of 2018

¶39

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶40

¶41

WP(MD)No.3646 of 2018

¶42

24.10.2024

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

5/5

O.a.a.Ananthapadmanaban v. the Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.a.a.Ananthapadmanaban v. the 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

M/S. J.P. Tobacco Products (P) Vs Regional Provident Fund

Kodaikanal Christian College Vs the Enforcement Officer

M/S. Bishop Ganadhasan Vs the Regional Provident Fund

Chidambarathammal Vs Govinthammal

Alex Midhin Tom Vs The Inspector of Police

M/S. Arulmigu Subramaniasamy Vs the Assistant Provident Fund