Dismissed¶35

M/S.R.S.740 Mutharasan Primary v. the Registrar

Madras HC13 Feb 2025WP(MD)/8186/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPF Act 1952 – Section 7Q interest recovery – Section 14B damages – attachment by Recovery Officer – appeal ATA No.616(13)/2014 pending before EPFAT, New Delhi with interim stay dated 22.07.2014 – corrigendum dated 15.02.2018 excluding Rs.2,18,330/- – cause does not survive – writ petition dismissed – instalment request left to Recovery Officer to consider in accordance with law – Madras High Court, Madurai Bench – Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J. – 13.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief; writ petition dismissed. Liberty left open to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 for consideration of an instalment request in accordance with law; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs. ¶35

M/S.R.S.740 Mutharasan Primary Vs the Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned attachment proceeding for recovery of interest under Section 7Q was unsustainable because the petitioner's appeal against the Section 14B orders was pending before the appellate Tribunal with interim stay operating. +2 more

¶24

Court's answer

In the light of the counter affidavit and the corrigendum dated 15.02.2018 excluding the amount covered by the interim stay, the sole ground on which the impugned attachment was questioned is no more available.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the corrigendum dated 15.02.2018 issued by respondent No.2, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶35

Key takeaways

The Court declined to itself permit payment in instalments, but left it open to the petitioner to approach the respondents with such a request, and directed that respondent No.2 shall consider any such request in accordance with law; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging attachment proceeding No.MD/MDU/29025/RECY/C16/2018 dated 09.01.2018 issued by the Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Regional Office, Madurai, for recovery of interest payable under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner had appealed (ATA No.616(13)/2014) against orders under Section 14B of the said Act before the appellate Tribunal, where interim stay dated 22.07.2014 was operating, covering damages of Rs.2,18,330/- for the period 03/2002 to 02/2011. The second respondent conceded the stay in its counter affidavit and issued a corrigendum dated 15.02.2018 for Rs.2,50,833/- duly excluding the stayed amount. Held, the sole ground of challenge being no more available, the cause in the writ petition did not survive and the writ petition was dismissed. The Court declined to itself permit payment in instalments but left it open to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2, who shall consider any such request in accordance with law. Connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.8186 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8186 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.7737 of 2018

¶7

M/s.R.S.740 Mutharasan Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Represented through its Secretary, Mutharasan Post, Sivagangai District 630 559.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Registrar, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, EPF Tribunal, No.26, Haddows Road 1^st Floor, Sastri Bavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai 6.

¶11

2.The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai 5.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)Nos.8186 of 2018

¶16

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned orders passed by the 2^nd respondent made in No.MD/MDU/29025/RECY/C16/2018 dated 09.01.2018 and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravikumar for R2 R1 - Tribunal

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed aggrieved by the proceeding bearing No.MD/MDU/29025/RECY/C16/2018 dated 09.01.2018, whereby, the property mentioned therein was attached for recovery of interest amount payable by the petitioner under Section 7Q of the “Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952” (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

¶20

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

W.P.(MD)Nos.8186 of 2018

¶24

2. The main ground on which, the said proceeding was challenged is that the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the orders passed under Section 14B of the said Act before the appellate Tribunal vide ATA No.616(13)/2014. The learned Tribunal has been pleased to grant interim stay by an order dated 22.07.2014 and the said appeal is stated to be still pending and interim stay is operating. Thus, in spite of the stay granted by the learned appellate Tribunal, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings proposing to recover the interest from the petitioner by ordering attachment of the immovable property of the petitioner.

¶25

3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit conceding about the interim stay granted by the appellate Tribunal as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also stating that the respondent No.2, having come to know about the interim stay, has already issued a corrigendum dated 15.02.2018, duly excluding the amount of Rs.2,18,330/- from the purview of the impugned attachment and the respondents are only intending to proceed against

¶26

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD)Nos.8186 of 2018

¶29

the recovery of other amounts pursuant to the impugned attachment, but not in respect of the amount covered by the interim stay granted by the learned appellate Tribunal. The relevant paragraph from the counter affidavit reads as follows:

¶30

“13. It is submitted that while issuing the said attachment order, the amount of Rs.2,18,330/- the damages for the period 03/2002 to 02/2011, the recovery of which has been stayed by the EPFAT, New Delhi vide an interim order passed in ATA No. 616(13)/2014, has been inadvertently included. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated 15.02.2018 has been issued for the amount of Rs. 2,50,833/- duly excluding the amount of Rs.2,18,330/-. There is no legal bar in recovery the amount of Rs.2,50,833/- as mentioned in the corrigendum.”

¶31

In the light of the above, the sole ground on which the impugned attachment is sought to be questioned is no more available.

¶32

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)Nos.8186 of 2018

¶35

4. In the light of the above, taking into consideration of the corrigendum dated 15.02.2018 issued by the respondent No.2, this Court is of the considered view that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶36

5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to permit the petitioner to pay the due amounts in instalments. However, this Court is not inclined to consider the same. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the respondents making such a request and in case if any such request is made, respondent No.2 shall consider the same in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

13.02.2025

¶38

Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶39

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)Nos.8186 of 2018

¶42

Index : Yes / No