Disposed

M/s.Deutsche Bank v. Employees Provident Fund Department

Madras HC24 Jul 2025WP/32200/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank challenged an EPF attachment over property it sought to sell. Court directed the EPF Department to issue notice with a break-up of dues, inform the liquidator of payments, and lift the attachment once entire dues were paid.

What did the court decide?

Directions to EPF Department to issue notice with dues break-up, mark payments to liquidator, and raise attachment after full payment; no costs.

M/s.Deutsche Bank Vs Employees Provident Fund Department — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Writ Petition No.32200 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Writ Petition No.32200 of 2022

¶7

M/s.Deutsche Bank, Rep. By its Authorised Officer, Ground Floor, 4-4A Western Tower, Sunny Side, Shafi Mohammed Road, Thousands Lights, Chennai – 600 006. Tamil Nadu.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Vs 1.Employees Provident Fund Department, 37, Royapettah High Road, Azad Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 014.

¶10

2.Madhu Desikan, Liquidator of M/s.Connextions Retail Stores Private Limited, Rep. by its Liquidator Shri.Madhu Desikan, ¼, Vijay Laxmi Apartment, Balasubramanium Street, Mylapore – 600 004.

¶11

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, writ of mandamus, directing the 1 st respondent to raise the attachment from the said property bearing in Survey No.64, Plot No.5153, W Block, Door No.9, 3 rd Main Road, Chennai – 600 040, Block No.1A extent of 2 grounds and 1,066 sq.ft and forbear the respondents from in any manner dispossessing or interfering with the petitioner's right to execute the sale of

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

Writ Petition No.32200 of 2022

¶15

such property without issuing notice and hearing the petitioner and following the due process of law.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.G.Sathyanarayana

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Viswanathan for R1 Mr.B.Ramana Kumar for R2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he is ready to pay the amount to the 1^st respondent authorities and no break up details have been given to him from the authorities. Therefore, the 1^st respondent authorities are directed to send a notice to the petitioner with break up details, so as to pay the above said amount. Since there is a dispute between the liquidator and the petitioner, the 1^st respondent authorities under EPF Department shall also mark a copy to the liquidator and the remittance of the amount by the petitioner also to be informed to the liquidator so that they can record the payment in appropriate records maintained by them. After payment of entire dues, the 1^st respondent is directed to raise the attachment immediately.

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

Writ Petition No.32200 of 2022

¶23

With the above said observations and directions, this writ

¶24

petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

24.07.2025

¶26

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral citation:Yes/No ub To 1.Employees Provident Fund Department, 37, Royapettah High Road, Azad Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 014. 2.Madhu Desikan, Liquidator of M/s.Connextions Retail Stores Private Limited, Rep. by its Liquidator Shri.Madhu Desikan, ¼, Vijay Laxmi Apartment, Balasubramanium Street, Mylapore – 600 004.

¶27

3/4

¶28

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

¶29

Writ Petition No.32200 of 2022

¶30

P.DHANABAL , J.

¶31

¶32

Writ Petition No.32200 of 2022

¶33

24.07.2025

¶34

4/4

¶35

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

M/s.Deutsche Bank v. Employees Provident Fund Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Deutsche Bank v. Employees Provident Fund Department

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

The Management Vs Nethaji Pookkuvarathu Thozhilalargal Pathukappu Thozhil Sangam

The Management Vs The Regional Provident fund commissioner-Ii

Va Tech Wabag Private Ltd. Vs K. Selvakumar

Enrica Enterprises Employees Union Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Kalyanapuram panchayat Vs S.Elumalai

The Management Vs The Additinal Commissioner of Labour