Allowed

Tayal Energy Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Nov 2012CWP/1826/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought refund of provident fund amount recovered during pendency of an earlier writ petition which was allowed. Court directed refund as no legal basis remained to retain amount pending Supreme Court appeal which was not yet listed.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to refund Rs. 33,28,248/- to petitioner within three weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of order.

Tayal Energy Ltd. Vs Regional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.1826 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision: 20.11.2012

¶3

Tayal Energy Limited, Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ....Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶8

Present: Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner

¶9

Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent

¶10

¶11

RAJESH BINDAL J.

¶12

The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent to refund an amount of ` 33,28,248/- which was recovered by the respondent during the pendency of earlier writ petition bearing CWP No.15933 of 2009 filed by it before this Court challenging the action of the respondent, whereby the amount of provident fund due from M/s Goindwal Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited, Tarn Taran was sought to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶13

The aforesaid earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide judgement dated March 07, 2011. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent bearing LPA No.893 of 2011 was dismissed by this Court on 15.07.2011 and thereafter despite the request made by the petitioner, the amount recovered from the petitioner has not been refunded back.

¶14

-2-

¶15

CWP No.1826 of 2012

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.893 of 2011 has been challenged by the respondent by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7532 of 2012 on 24.12.2011. As the matter is pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the action of the respondent in denying refund of the amount recovered from the petitioner, during the pendency of the earlier writ petition filed by it before this Court, is not in conformity with law. The recovery sought to be made was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.15933 of 2009, which was set aside. It was during the pendency thereof that out of the total demand of 35,78,931/-, an amount of 33,28,248/-was recovered from the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed. The recovery sought to be made from the petitioner was set aside.

¶18

Aggrieved against the judgement of learned Single Judge, the respondent preferred LPA No.893 of 2011 which was dismissed on 15.07.2011. It is claimed that the Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgement of the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No.893 of 2011 was filed on 24.12.2011 but till date the Special Leave Petition has not been got listed though the period of about one year has lapsed.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot be denied refund of the amount deposited by it in terms of the order passed by the authority which

¶20

CWP No.1826 of 2012

¶21

-3-

¶22

has been set aside. As on today, there is no legal sanction with the respondent to retain the amount deposited by the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent shall refund an amount of ` 33,28,248/- to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

¶25

20.11.2012 neenu

Tayal Energy Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tayal Energy Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Kaur Vs Punjab Agriculture University and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Saini Vs Union of India and Ors.

Satinder @ Happy Vs State of Punjab

M/S Ropar Thermal Plant (Cgstp) Pseb Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Fire Brigade Employees Union Jalandhar (Regd) Vs State of Punjab and Ors.