Partly allowed

M/s. Priya Ranjani Fibers Ltd., Rep. by its Director, v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Telangana HC10 Nov 2011WP/27397/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal against an EPFO demand. Respondents opposed with a vacate petition citing admitted default and lack of controversy. The Court permitted payment in six monthly instalments starting December 2011.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to deposit the balance amount in six equal monthly instalments, commencing from 1st December 2011.

M/s. Priya Ranjani Fibers Ltd., Rep. by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P.No.27397 of 2010

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

Heard both the learned counsel and with their consent, the writ petition itself is being disposed of.

¶5

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), dated 08-09-2010 in A.T.A.No.64 (1) of 2002, whereunder, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on finding that the applicability of the Employees’ Provident Fund Authority under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is not in controversy and the default attributed to the financial difficulties cannot be taken into consideration. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition which was admitted on 03-11-2010 and in view of 50% of the amount already deposited by the petitioner, the further proceedings were stayed pending writ petition.

¶6

3. The respondents have now filed a vacate petition pointing out in the absence of any major controversy and applicability of the Act, and in view of the fact that default is admitted, there is no reason to justify the relief sought for by the petitioner.

¶7

4. It is true that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the primary authority under Section 7-A of the Act was considered and disposed of by the appellate Tribunal in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Orissa, noticed in para-6 of the impugned order. The financial difficulty,

¶8

therefore, cannot be a valid ground to interfere with demand.

¶9

5. At this stage, petitioner’s counsel requested that in view of the deposit of 50% of the amount, the petitioner be granted reasonable instalments so that the balance amount can also be paid.

¶10

6. In view of the said fair submission, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to deposit balance amount payable by it to the credit of the 1^st respondent in six equal monthly instalments, commencing from 1^st December 2011, successively every month. If the petitioner commits any two consecutive defaults, the respondents shall at liberty to recover the balance amount by issuing notice in accordance with law. No costs.

¶11

________________ 10-11-2011 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o. kvr

M/s. Priya Ranjani Fibers Ltd., Rep. by its Director, v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Priya Ranjani Fibers Ltd., Rep. by its Director, v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Anjaneya Swamy Boatsmen sand quarry and fishermen Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Astra Mining Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Director Vs The Government of a.P., Rep by its Secretary

A. Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Subbash Chandra Patra Vs Senir Divisional Commercial Manager

M/s. Anand Construction Company, Vs The General Manager

Y. Mahadeva Reddy, Vs The State rep by the Director of Mines and Geology