Dismissed

Arvind Kumar Verma, v. The Union of India

Patna HC24 Feb 2022CWJC/9944/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a limited company's status under Article 12. The High Court held that a limited company does not fall within the definition of Article 12 and dismissed the writ petition under Article 226, reserving liberty to approach an appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Liberty reserved to invoke appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

Arvind Kumar Verma, Vs The Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9944 of 2021

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Arvind Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Ram Aadhar Verma, at 801, Awas Vikas Colony, Mahadev Jharkhandi, Kunaraghat, Gorakhpur, U.P.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India x

¶7

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh at Indore-at Present Ujjain.

¶8

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Thana, Mumbai, Maharastra.

¶9

Managing Director, Prism Johnoson Ltd. for Marely, Prism Cement Ltd. H and R at Cor-Porate Office, 7th Flor, Winder, CST Road, Calina, Sharta Kruj (E) Mumbai-400098.

¶10

Senior Vice President HR,Address-at Cor-Porate Office, 7th Floor, Winder, CST Road, Calina, Sharta Kruj (E) Mumbai-400098.

¶11

Regional Senior Manaer (Sales) Prism Johnson Ltd. At-T.P. Agency Shalimar Cold Storage, Anishabad Patna, P.O.-Anishabad, P.S.-Gardanibagh, Patna.

¶12

Supply Chain D.G.M. (PJL)-Mr. Nitin Dubeey Santaraj, Mumbai.

¶13

D.G.M. (Finance-PIL), Bala KUmar, Kolkata.

¶14

Zonal HR (PJL)-Mr. Manav Kumar, New Delhi.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

======================================================

¶17

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Dr. K. N. Singh (ASG) ======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL ORDER

¶19

3 24-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

In the petition, petitioner has grievance against limited

¶21

company, Prism Johnson Limited Company do not fall under the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution. In the result, the present petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.9944 of 2021(3) dt.24-02-2022 2/2

¶23

Hence, writ petition stands dismissed, reserving

¶24

liberty to the petitioner to invoke appropriate remedy before

¶25

appropriate forum.

¶26

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶27

Ankit/-

¶28

Arvind Kumar Verma, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Verma, v. The Union of India

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

Ruby Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Janardan Prasad Singh Kashyap, Vs The State of Bihar

Sunita Kumari Vs The Union of India

Binoy Krishna Jha @ Binay Krishna Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Deo Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar