Dismissed¶26

M/s.Emerald Engineering v. The Regional Provident Fund

Madras HC24 Mar 2025WMP/28067/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 1814 days; restoration petition; W.P.No.26391 of 2016 dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.09.2019; Section 5 of the Limitation Act; EPF damages demand; 50% deposit of damages; liberty to appeal before appellate authority; exclusion of pendency period for limitation; COVID-19 pandemic; insolvency; Company Law Tribunal; Emerald Engineering; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II Tambaram; Madras High Court; 24.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority against the respondent's damages order, subject to deposit of 50% of the damages within four weeks; the period pending before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation. ¶26

M/s.Emerald Engineering Vs The Regional Provident Fund — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.03.2025

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.M.P.No.28067 of 2024

¶6

in W.P.No.26391 of 2016

¶7

M/s.Emerald Engineering, Rep. by its Managing Director P.Mohanraj, No.41, Pudupakkam Village, Kelambakkam – Vandalur Main Road, Kanchipuram District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II (DDC), (Ministry of Labour, Government of India), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, No.03, Rajaji Salai, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer in W.M.P.No.28067 of 2024 : Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 1814 days in filing the restoration petition in W.P.No.26391 of 2016.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthu Krishnan For Respondent : Mr.M.Palanimuthu Standing Counsel *****

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Page No.1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

This Writ Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner,

¶18

seeking to condone the delay of 1814 days in filing the restoration petition in W.P.No.26391 of 2016.

¶19

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, due

¶20

to the non-appearance of the counsel, the above writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.09.2019. Thereafter, due to COVID19 pandemic situation, the petitioner was unable to follow up the case as the petitioner company was in severe turbulence due to insolvency and had to seriously follow up the proceeding in Company Law Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal from 2017 to till date and advent of COVID-19 pandemic from 2019 to 2022. Hence, the petitioner was unable to contact the erstwhile counsel on record and therefore, the above said act is not wilful or wanton, however due to above said reasons. Therefore, the present writ miscellaneous petition is filed.

¶21

3. He further submitted that, as against the impugned order passed by the respondent, there is an effective appeal remedy available before the appellate authority. Hence, on instructions, he submitted that, the petitioner is ready to deposit 50% of the demages demanded by the respondent by way of the impugned order and this Court, may grant liberty

¶22

Page No.2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority in the manner known to law.

¶25

4. Considering the fact that the petitioner has come forward to deposit 50% of the damages, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the petitioner to deposit 50% of the damages demanded by the respondent by way of the impugned order undated of 07/2016, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority in the manner known to law. The period pending before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation, enabling the petitioner to prefer an appeal.

¶26

6. Accordingly, this Writ Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed with the above liberty. No costs.

¶27

24.03.2025

¶28

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No sp

¶29

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶30

Page No.3 of 4

¶31

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