Disposed

M/s. C.P.LData Services (India) Private Ltd. v. The Union of India

Telangana HC5 Dec 2023WP/32635/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an EPFO prohibitory order attaching the petitioner's bank account. The Court directed the Recovery Officer to consider the petitioner's request for installment payments and restrained respondents from initiating coercive steps during the review process.

What did the court decide?

Directed 4th respondent to consider petitioner's representation for installments within 3 weeks; restrained respondents from taking coercive steps until decision is communicated.

M/s. C.P.LData Services (India) Private… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLINANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32635 OF²⁰²³

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. C.P.l. Data Services^(lNDlA) Private^{Ltd. Rep. by its Director, A.Balaji.} S/o. Late A.B.K.Murthy, Aged^{about 63 yrs, Occ. Director,R/oFlat.No C-11,} Vijay Pratap Apartment, Vidyanagar,^Hyderabad-

¶9

...PETITIONER/wRIT PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Union of lndia, Ministry of^{Labour and Employment, Rep by its secretary.} Shram Shakti Bhawan, New^{Delhi-'1 l0 001.}

¶12

The Employees Provident Fund Organization,^{Repby.its..Com.missioner,} Regional Office at Employees^{provident fund organization Madhapur,} Hyderabad Bavisyanidhi l3havan, 3-4-763/barkathpura^{chaman,Hyderabad-} 500027.

¶13

The Regional Office,^{EPFO, Rep by its Assistant P.F.Commissionerand} Recovery Officer, Hyderabad-ll.

¶14

The Recovery Officer, Employees^{ProvidentFund Office,Madhapur,} Hyderabad.

¶15

Bank of Baroda, rep by its Branch^{Manager, P.8.8.812159615,Road.No10,} Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe^{Constitutionof [ndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^{particularly one in the nature of} WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare^{the action of the respondents no. 2 to 5 in} issuing the prohibitory order vide. No.TS/ROll/HYD/Recove ryt516O3t\1290lPDRC^{N0 79 12023171 4, datedl T-'1 0-2023 by the} 3rd respondent under Sec.BF,^{BB to 89 of the Employees Provident Fundand} Miscellaneous Provisions^{Act,1952 and rules of the 2nd schedule of lncome Tax} Act for an amount Rs.14,29,3471-.^{There by attaching the petitioner's bank}

¶18

account No.266104000 01721 ,^Bank of^{Baroda Banjarahills Branchalong with} recovery charges to the tune of^{Rs.'14,29,B97l-( Rs.14,29,3471-+ 5151} =^to Rs. 14,29,897/-) and thereby the 5th respondent^{creatinga chargeto the tuneof} the Rs.14,29,897! as^{illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violativeof principlesof natural} justice and to set aside the same.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the HighCourt maybe pleased to} suspend the prohibitory order No.TS/ROll/HYD/Recove ry t51603t81290/PDRC.NO.79^12023171 4,^{dated 17 -10-2023for} attachment of the account No.^{26610400001721, Bankof BarodaBanjarahills} Branch to the tune of Rs.14,29,897/-(including^{recoverycharges) pending} disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt maybe pleased to} direct the respondent.No.3 to allow the^petitioner to^{pay the balance dues of} Rs.1 1 ,44, 100/- in 8 consecutive^{installmentsby acceptingthe acknowledged} D.D.No.385257, dated O2-11-2023^{and adjust the said amount in the attachment} order raised to the tune of^{Rs.14,29,897/-pending disposalof the above Writ} Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.R.S.SRINIVAS

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SMT^{RAJYALAXMI,REP.FOR} SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to^4: SRI^{G.VENKATESHWARLU,} SC FOR EPFO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION 0.32635 ot 2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Smt. Rajyalaxmi, learned Counsel representing Dy. Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.G,Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶33

2, The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶34

"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents no. 2 to 5 in issuing the^prohibitory order vide. No. TS/RO. IIlHYD/Recovery/5t603/ 81290 /PDRC.NO.7g/2023/714,^dated 17.L0.2O23 by the 3'd respondent under Sec. 8F, 88 to Bg of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and rules of the 2nd Schedule of Income Tax Act for an amount Rs.L4,29,347l-. There by attaching^the petitioner's bank account No.26610400001721, Bank of Baroda Banjarahills Branch along^with recovery charges to the tune of Rs.14,29,897/-( Rs.14,29,347/-+515/- =Rs. 74,79,897/-)^and thereby the 5th respondent creating a charge^to the tune of the Rs.14,29,897/- as^illegal,

¶35

¶36

arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

¶37

3 The soecific case of the oetitioner. i brief, is as

¶38

follows:

¶39

a) The petitioner Company is doing the business with the corporate identity number U722O0AP2OL3PTCO85879 under the name and style of M/s. C.P.L Data Services (INDIA) Private Limited, registered on 20.O2.2O23. The Petitioner company is doing the business of data correction, Modification of the data sent from their head office in the State of Detroit USA, virtually it is a B.P.O. Company.

¶40

b) It is further the case of the petitioner that due to the Covid-19 Pandemic the turnover of the business drastically slipped to the lowest level. The company has seen the financial instability during the said period and some of the clients in USA have sold their companies and overnight the projects were withdrawn by the new buyers of that companies hence, the petitioner company struggled to meet the regular overheads of the company as a result the PF contributions

¶41

¶42

¶43

through bearing^{accountNo.TS/HYD/81290/C5l6O3/} P.D/2223, I.D.No.APHYDOO81290O0O^{werepaid belatedlyand} the recovery^{oFFicer i.e., respondent No'2 has imposed} interest and^{damages to a tune of Rs'17,14,561/-under} Section 14(B)^{of theEPF Act and MiscellaneousprovisionsAct,} L952.

¶44

c) It is further^{the case of the petitionerthatimmediately} after receipt of^{the notice of the claim of Rs'17,14,561/-} towards damages^{and interest,the petitionerapproachedthe} 2nd respondent and^{depositedan amount of Rs'2,85,764/- on} 08.09.2023 and^{requestedthe 2nd respondent to consider the} balance^{paymentto a tune of Rs' 14,29,347l- in twelve} installments. That^{the 2nd respondentinstead of considering} the application of the^{petitioner seeking installments, sent a} Prohibitory Order^{vide TS/RO-II/HYD /Recovery/51603} /81290/PDRC.^{No.79,dated 17.10.2023 by attachingthe} petitioner's bank account^{No.26610400OO1721,Bank of} Baroda, Banjara Hills^{BranchaddingRs'515/- the recovery} charges and making^{the attachment to atuneof} Rs.14,29,897/- and^{created charge and did not even allow the} salary amounts^{of the employees'The petitioner cameto}

¶45

¶46

know about the attachment order only through respondent No.5 and the petitioner approached respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of bank attachments and the petitioner again deposited another amount of Rs.2,85,764l- through the D.D.No.385257, dated 02.1L.2023 along with a request letter for the consideration for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the balance amount of Rs.11,44,100/- to be paid in at least (g) installments. The petitioner has not yet received the receipt for the same.

¶47

d) That having seen the drastic changes in the software business at global level during and after the covid period and also the recession which is pertinent in the present context of the business, it is very difficult to the petitioner to pay in lump sum, the whole amount of Rs.11,44,100/- at one time. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

¶48

PERUSED THE RECORD

¶49

It is the specific case of the petitioner that petitioner vide representation dated 09.11.2023 addressed to the 4th respondent herein requested to provide the receipt for the

¶50

¶51

':.,.

¶52

amount^paid by^{the petitioner on 02.11.2023and also} requested to^{allow the petitioner to pay the balancedue} amount^{in installmentbasis. The saidrepresentation,} dated 09.11.2023^{ot the petitioner,addressed to the 4th} respondent/Recovery^{Officer,EPFO Regional Office,} Hyderabad^{reads as under:}

¶53

"As per the notices^{(referred above) we} have received the order^{to pay atotal} amount of^{Rs.17,14,561/-as interestand} damages for^{late payments.Out of this} arnorit we^{have paid Rs.2,85,764/- on 8th} September, 2013,^{through DD No.385178} and we requested^{you to provide installment} facility for balance^{amount of Rs.14,28,797/-} . But as on 17th^{October, 2023 you have} attached mY bank account No.26610400OOl72t^{for the amount of} Rs.14,29,347l-(including^{Rs.550/-)towards} recovery charges).^{After that, as on 2no} November, 2023 we^{have deposited} Rs.z,85,764/-^{throughDD No.385257for this} the receipt was not^{yet received. So here} re ue o ro th recet rl fort hea moun Datdo 2 Novem ber, 2O23^{andolease allowusto} a nc e nt installment basis."

¶54

Learned counsel^{appearingon behalf of the petitioner} contends that though^{the representationsubmitted by the} petitioner dated 09.11.2023 had^{been receivedand} acknowledged^{by the 4th respondent,but as on date no steps}

¶55

¶56

have been initiated by the 4th respondent considering the request of the petitioner for payment of balance amount of Rs.11,44,100/- in (6) monthly insta[ments.

¶57

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 brings on record the proceedings No.TS/HYD/B 1 290/C_5 160 3 / p.D / 2022_ 23/L273, dated 20.12.2022 and also proceedtngs No.TS/HYD/81290/C-51603/p.D/2022_23/tlt4, ctated 20.12.2022, issued by the office of the Assistant p.F. Commissioner, Regional Office-Il, Madhapur, Hyderabad and contends that the petitioner has not challenged the determination order as on date and therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot -be granted to the petitioner.

¶58

7.^' Without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated O9.11.2O23 which has been acknowledged by the 4th respondent and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to !aw, within a period of three (O3) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till

¶59

¶60

such exercise as indicated above is initiated and concluded, and the decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 09.11.2023 is communicated to the petitioner, the respondents shall not initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner herein. However,

¶61

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

As a sequel Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶63

stand closed.

¶64

SD/.K. SREERAMA MU HY ASSISTANT REGIq RAR

¶65

//TRUE COPY//

¶66

SECTION FICER

¶67

To, '1 . The Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi, Union of lndia -^{1 '10 001.}

¶68

The Commissioner, Employees^{Provident Fund Organizalion, Regional Office} at Employees provident furid organization^{lvladhapur, H-yderabad Bavisyanidhi} Bhavdn, 3-4-763lbarkathpura chaman, Hyderabad-500027.

¶69

The Regional Office, EPFO,^{Rep by its Assistant P.F. Commissioner and} Recovery Officer, Hyderabad-l^l.

¶70

The Recovery Officer, Employees^{ProvidentFund Office,Madhapur'} Hyderabad-

¶71

The Branch [\4anager, Bank of^{Baroda,P .8.8.812159615,Road.No.10, Baniara} Hills, Hyderabad.

¶72

One CC to SRI fU.R.S.SRINIVAS,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

One CC to SRI G.VENKATESHWARLU,^{SC FOR EPFO} [OPUC]

¶74

One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN^{KUIMAR, Dy SOLICITORGEN. OF INDIA'} High Court for the State of Telangana at^Hyderabad [OPUC]

¶75

Two CD Copies

BSR BS t"r{

HIGH COURT

DATED:^0511212023

ORDER

WP.No.32635^{of 2023}

¶81

1 e STAIG:
J
O 2 o DEt 2[?3 a
{=

rrk-!'

¶82

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION,} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶83

M/s. C.P.LData Services (India) Private Ltd. v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. C.P.LData Services (India) Private Ltd. v. The Union of India

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

V.Venkateswarlu Reddy Vs The Government of Telangana

Aouf Bin Sayeed Bin Siddig Vs The State of Telangana

Echhareshwara J.V. Vs Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (Promoted by Irda, Government of India)

Mikkilineni Jyothisri, Hyderabad and 2 Others Vs Vice Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad and 3 Oth

M. Satish, Vs The Principal Secretary (Animal Husbandry)

Miss M.Sandhya Rani Vs The State of Telangana