Dismissed

The Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Telangana HC10 Oct 2014WP/7397/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition by a financing bank challenging its treatment as a deemed defaulter under the EPF Act. The bank claimed the dues belonged to a different society (PACS) held no funds, yet failed to contest the show cause notice denying liability before paying. Since funds were already remitted, the bank was directed to recover the amount from the PACS in future transactions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; petitioner to recover amount from PACS in future transactions.

The Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7397 OF 2004

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The petitioner is the Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Guntur, is aggrieved by the Order dated 24.03.2003 passed by the 2^nd respondent, whereunder petitioner was treated as deemed defaulter under Sections 8B to 8E of The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short “the Act”) and thereby directing them to remit the payment of Rs.1,05,794-30 ps., on account of the payments due on behalf of the Kandlagunta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Kandlagunta (in short “the PACS”). Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶5

2) As per the averments in the affidavit, petitioner submits that it is only a Financing Bank and they are not concerned with the dues of the PACS and as such, demanding of dues of the PACS from the petitioner and issuing orders are illegal. Petitioner also submits that on account of coercive steps taken, petitioner-Bank had already remitted monies to the respondent authorities and as such seeks Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to refund the amounts paid.

¶6

3) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent admitting that the issuance of notice and payment of the money by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit it has been asserted that a restraint order dated 27.02.2003 is made against the petitioner restraining until further orders from making any payment from the account of the PACS for a sum of Rs.1,05,794-30 ps. The notice

¶7

was categorical to restrain and if the funds are available the payments to be made. Inasmuch as, it is presumed that the payments have been made effected out of the funds of the PACS, and as such the petitioner may recover the said money from the PACS.

¶8

4) I have considered the rival submission. This is a case where the petitioner in response to the notice dated 27.02.2003 failed to deny and inform the respondent authorities that though the PACS is maintaining an account with the Bank, the Bank is not holding any monies of the PACS and as such there are no monies that could be remitted. A Simple reply of that nature has not been made in response to the notice dated 27.02.2003, and on the contrary the petitioner made the payment in obedience to the orders dated 24.03.2003, which was passed and there was no response from the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 27.02.2003. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the account maintained by the PACS with the Bank there are no monies to the credit of the PACS, such averment is not made in the writ affidavit and further the said aspect being a question of fact, this Court is unable to decide on that issue. Considering the fact that the payment has already been made by the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to recover the said amount from the PACS in connection with any of the future transactions.

¶9

5) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶10

-----------------------------------

¶11

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Dated:10.10.2014. Ssv

The Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank 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

Jarpala Gopya , Gopi Vs Smt Usha Rani

Smt.Badavath Aruna Vs Dr.K.Ashok

Shaik Chan Basha, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Dr. Sanjeev Singh Yadav, Vs Smt. Suryakala

T. Subhash Goud Vs H. Kashi Reddy

Boya Sanjanna, S/o. Boya Chinna Hanumanna, Vs The District Collector, Kurnool.