Dismissed

M/S.a.J. Square Consulancy v. the Asst. Provident Fund

Madras HC28 Oct 2024WP(MD)/8521/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This brief order dismisses a writ petition challenging Proceedings under Section 8F of the EPF and MP Act. The court noted the petitioner's absence at the final hearing in 2024 and dismissed the petition without substantive adjudication on the legality of the recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Discontinued the writ petition for non-appearance of the petitioner at the final hearing.

M/S.a.J. Square Consulancy Vs the Asst… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.8521 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.10.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.8521 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No. 6576 of 2017

¶7

M/s.A.J. Square Consultancy Service Private Limited, By its Director Raja John, 1-12, Vilacheri Main Road, Vilacheri, Madurai - 625 006. ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002.

¶10

2.The Recovery Officer, Office of the Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling upon the

¶12

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

¶13

1/4

¶14

Impugned

¶15

W.P(MD)No.8521 of 2017

¶16

Impugned Proclamation of Sale Notice

¶17

No.MD/MDU/58069/RO/Recy/2017, dated 27.03.2017 of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶18

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is filed as against the proceedings initiated by the first respondent as against the recovery proceedings initiated under Section 8F of the EPF and MP Act.

¶22

2.This writ petition was filed in the year 2017. When the writ petition was taken up for final hearing on 22.10.2024, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, this Court has directed the Registry to list the petition under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶23

3.The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that this petition has been filed as against the consequential proceedings without

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

W.P(MD)No.8521 of 2017

¶27

challenging the original order passed under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act. This is only the consequential order consequent to the proceedings, dated 15.04.2015 passed under Section 14B of the EPF and MP Act and Section 7Q of the Act.

¶28

4.Since the petitioner is not having a valid case as per the case projected by the learned Counsel for the respondents, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

28.10.2024 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.8521 of 2017

¶33

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶34

¶35

W.P(MD)No.8521 of 2017

¶36

28.10.2024

¶37

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/S.a.J. Square Consulancy v. the Asst. Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.a.J. Square Consulancy v. the Asst. Provident Fund

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

Ramar Vs L.Kalaivanan

Lakshmi Prabha Vs Padmanabhan Sunramania Iyer

M/S.Trichy Engineering College Vs the Regional Provident Fund

Barnikana Pavan Kumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.Uppili Seenivasan Vs The Principal Secretary

M.Raja Vs The State of Tamil Nadu