Disposed

M/s Charminar Non-Wovens Limited, v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Telangana HC4 Apr 2005WP/7050/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking to challenge an order levying penal interest for provident fund defaults. The court held that the petition was not maintainable without exhausting the statutory appeal remedy and granted leave to appeal subject to a deposit condition.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal granted; stay of proceedings conditioned on deposit of 50% of demanded amount.

M/s Charminar Non-Wovens Limited, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 7050 of 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s Charminar Non-Wovens Limited, rep. by its Managing Director Mr. P.V. Rao, 6- 2-9, Flat No. G-4, Aneshka Towers, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Accounts Office, 12-1, Susheeram Complex, Patancheru, Medak District.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the records and issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and set aside the impugned order of the respondent No. AP/23892/SAO/PTC/ENF(PD)/2005/2101 dt. 9-3-2005 being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from being violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Counsel for the Respondent: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.)

¶14

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

¶17

09-03-2005 passed by the respondent under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, levying a sum of Rs.5,52,669/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty two thousand six hundred and sixty nine only) as penal interest and damages for the period from March, 2000 to November, 2003 for default in remittance of provident fund contributions and other dues.

¶18

At the out set, the learned standing counsel raised an objection stating that against the impugned order, an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 7-I of the Act and therefore without exhausting the same, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained.

¶19

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to workout the alternative remedy of appeal as available under Section 7-I of the Act. If any such appeal is preferred within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and appropriate orders be passed, in accordance with l aw . Pending such appeal, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in furtherance of the impugned order dated 09-03-2005 subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount demanded under the proceedings dated 0903-2005 within a period of six weeks from today.

¶20

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

G. ROHINI, J

¶22

Dated: 04-04-2005

¶23

LSK

¶24

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶25

¶26

1. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Accounts Office, 12-1, Susheeram Complex, Patancheru, Medak District.

¶27

2. Two C.D. copies.

M/s Charminar Non-Wovens Limited, v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Charminar Non-Wovens Limited, v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

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

Puli Sanjeev, Vs The Regional passport officer

B.Laxman, Vs District Collector

V.Rambabu, Vs The District Collector

M. Laxmamma, Vs The Mandal aRevenue Officer

R.a.S.Educational and Rural Development Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

R.A.S. Educational and Rural Development Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh