Allowed

M/s. Manisha Agri Biotech (P) Ltd., v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Telangana HC28 Feb 2013WP/39515/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside attachment of petitioner's bank accounts in EPF proceedings, directing appearance by an authorized representative. Failure to appear would permit re-attachment. Related writs were disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Attachment order set aside subject to authorized representative appearing; subsequent indulgence conditioned on continued appearance.

M/s. Manisha Agri Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.39515 of 2012

¶3

Dated 2 8 th February, 2013

¶4

Between: M/s.Manisha Agri Biotech (P) Ltd., …Petitioner and

¶5

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Barkatpura, Hyderabad and another

¶6

…Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar

¶8

Counsel for the respondents: Smt.Danda Radhika

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

The petitioner’s bank accounts in Kotak Mahendra Bank Limited, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, have been attached by the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. For the reason that despite several opportunities, any of the representatives of the petitioner has not appeared, proceedings under Section 7A(2) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) have been initiated. This Court by order, dated 24.12.2012, suspended the said order.

¶12

In the counter affidavit of respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that even though the case is posted from time to time from 14.08.2012 under intimation to the petitioner, it has not availed the opportunities given to it and failed to produce the records. That due to this reason, respondent No.2 has invoked the provisions of Section 7A(2) of the Act r/w Section 32 of CPC for attachment of two bank accounts of the petitioner for enforcing its attendance.

¶13

Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the management of the petitioner has been changed recently and that as relevant record was not readily available, its representative was taking time before respondent No.2 for production of record. He has further submitted that the petitioner will participate in the proceedings before respondent No.2 without fail.

¶14

In the light of the above undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of attachment is set aside, subject however to the condition that the authorised representative of the petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 for every hearing. To show its bona fides, the petitioner shall send its representative on 04.03.2013 to respondent No.2 and he shall continue to be present before respondent No.2 on all subsequent dates till the proceedings get concluded. If there is any default of appearance, respondent No.2 shall be free to again order for attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner.

¶15

The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.50184 of 2012 and W.V.M.P.No.314 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

28^th February, 2013 VGB

¶17

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

M/s. Manisha Agri Biotech (P) Ltd., v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Manisha Agri Biotech (P) Ltd., 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

M.Munirathnam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gulam Afzal, Vs The Director, Central Burea of Investigation (C.B.I)

Manoj Patel, S/o. Ravilal Patel, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. J. Indira, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep. by its

Bejagam Swarajyam, W/o. Late Ramulu Vs The Government of India

Mohammed Asif Khan, , Asif Khan, S/o. Habeeb Khan Vs The Regional Passport Officer