Disposed

State Bank of India, Rr Dist v. Union of India, and 2 Others

Telangana HC11 Dec 2024WP/26910/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of two writ petitions challenging deemed default notices under the ESI Act issued against a State Bank branch. The Court set aside the impugned orders, granting liberty to the Respondents to call the petitioner for a hearing to clarify the identity discrepancy regarding the account holder. The interim suspension order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders calling the petitioner as deemed defaulter under ESI Act were set aside with liberty to the Recovery Officer to call the petitioner for a hearing to clarify the identity of the acc

State Bank of India, Rr Dist Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

l I l I l

¶2

[³⁴⁰⁵ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶7

WRIT PETITICI..I NO S: 26910 AND 23816 0F 2017

¶8

W.P.No.2 6910 of 2017

¶9

Between:

¶10

State Bank Of lndia, .(Formerly^{State Bank of Hyderbbad), Thumkunta} Branch, Shameerpet Villaoe, Medchal, Rangareddy Distrii;t, - SOtj OZA i+.--ny Cfriei lVanager.

¶11

.,...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

'l Union of lndia, tr/inistry of Labour and Emproyment New Derhi, Represented by Secretary.

¶14

2 Fe.goygry Officer, Employees State lnsurance Corporation Government of tndia lvinistry of Labolr 5nd Emproymeris-s-23, fiiir F;,r n"iol rivoiii"uia - 500063

¶15

3 tu/s st. Paul's Dav-cum-Residentiar schoor, shameerpet viilage, Medchar, Ranga Reddy Disirict, Rep.by ii. C"rr,;p;'d;i"'"'

¶16

...,.RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order, or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in issuing the Proceedings No.52.e/31280-1302, dated 16-06-2017 u/s. 45-G of the ESI Act, 1948 read o with second schedure of rncome Tax Act, ig61 and rncome Tax (certificate Proceedings) Rures, 'r 962, as bad, iilegar, without jurisdiction, without application of mind, and contrary to the provisions of the ESr Act, 1g4s, and also contrary to the provisions of the principres of naturar justice, and as such, liable to be set aside, hording that the petitioner Bank is not riabre to pay

¶18

the alleged amounts together with the interest thereon under impugned Proceedings No.52 .Q/31280-'1302 dated 16-06-2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent.

¶19

|.A.NO:1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 33434 OF 20171

¶20

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Proceedings No.52.Q/31280- 1302, dated 16-06-2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent.

¶21

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶22

Between:

¶23

Union of lndia, l/inistry of Labour and Employment New Delhi, Represented by Secretary.

¶24

Recovery Officer, Employees State lnsurance Corppration Government of lndia Ministry of Labour and Employment 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad - 500063

¶25

.....PETITIONEIT/RESPONDENTS

¶26

AND

¶27

'1 . State Bank Of India, (Formerly State Bank of Hyderabad), Thumkunta Branch, Shameerpet Village, Medchal, Rangareddy District, - 500 078 Rep. by Chief IVlanager.

¶28

.....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶29

lV/s St. Paul's Day-Cum-Residential School,, Shameerpet Village, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep.by its Correspondent.

¶30

(R - 2 is formal party)

¶31

.....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶32

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate interim suspension orders dated^'l 1tO8l2017 passed in WP.MP.No. 33434 of 2017 in W.P.No.26910 of 2017.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.RAMA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI E.MADAN MOHAN RAO

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.l : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICIOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶35

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI M.RAVINDER REDDY

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : -

¶38

W.P.NO: 23816 OF 2017

¶39

Between:

¶40

State Bank of lndia (Formerly State Bank of Hyderabad), Rep. by Chief Manager Thumkunta Branch, Shameerpet Mandal Medchal District - 500 078.

¶41

.....PETITIONER

¶42

AND

¶43

The Government of lndia, Ministry of Labour and Employment i{ew Delhi, Represented by Secretary.

¶44

Recovery Officer, Employees State lnsurance Corporation Government of lndia, Ministry of Labour and Employment 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad^- 063.

¶45

M/s. St. Paul's Day-cum-Residential School, Shameerpet Village, Medchal, Hyderabad District, rep. by its Correspondent

¶46

(R3 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 19-07-20'17)

¶47

..,..RESPONDENTS

¶48

Petition Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the Proceedings No.52.Q/3',l280-1302, dated^'16-06-2017 & 22.06.2017 u/s. 45-G of the ESI Act, 1948 read with Second Schedule of lncome Tax Act, 196'1 and lncome Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules,^'1962, as bad illegal, without^{jurisdiction,} without application of mind, and contrary to the^provisions of the ESI Act, 1948 and also contrary to the provisions of the^principles of natural justice, and as such liable to be set aside, holding that the Petitioner Bank is not liable to pay the alleged amounts together with the interest thereon under impugned Proceedings No.52.Q/31280-1302 dt. 16-06-2017 & 22.06.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent, in the interest of justice.

¶49

l.A.NO:1 OF 2017^(WPMP. NO:29472OF 2017

¶50

Petition Under Section 15'l CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶51

suspend the impugned proceedings No.s2.e/31 280 -1302 dt.22.o6.201 7 passed by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ petition, in the interest of justice.

¶52

!.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶53

Between:

¶54

1 The Government of rndia. Ministry of Labour and Emproyment New Derhi, Represented by Secretary.

¶55

2 Recovery officer, Emproyees state rnsurance corporation Government of India, Ministry of Labdur Lnd ilo];fi;r s:s-zi'[ili]"n Road, Hyderabad _ 063.

¶56

.....PETiTIONER/RESPONDENTS

¶57

AND

¶58

1 State Bank Of India, (Formerly State Bank of Hyderabad), Thumkunta Branch. Shameerpet Viilage, ilzledchat, ninga;jJv ;ilirict, _ soo ozA Rep. by Chref [r,4anager.^-

¶59

..... RESPONDE NT/PETITIONER

¶60

M/s.St. Pq!l's Day-Cum-Residential School,, Shameerpet Village, Medchat, Ranga Reddy District, Rep.by iis doiieiJonOent.

¶61

(R - 2 is format party)

¶62

.....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶63

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate interim suspension orders dated 1gro7r2o17 passed in w.p.No. 238.16 0f 2017

¶64

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt K.RAMA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI E,MADAN MOHAN RAO

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : M/s ANJALI AGARWAL

¶66

counsel for the Respondent No.2 : sRr G.vENKATESHVARLU (sc FoR ESrc)

¶67

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: -

¶68

The Court made the foilowing COMMON ORDER

¶69

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI^BHATTACHARYA

¶70

WRIT PETITION NOs.2 6910^AND 23ar6^{0F 20L7}

¶71

Mr. K. Rama Krishna, learned counsel^{representing Mr. E Madan MohanRao,} learned counsel for the^petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Reddy M, learned^{counsel for the respondertNo.2.}

¶72

COMMON ORDER:

¶73

The writ petitions arise out^of an^{orders dated 16'06.2017} and 22.06.2017 by which the^{respondent No.2/RecoveryOffrcer,} Employees State Insurance^{Corporation(ESIC),held the petitioner} to be a deemed defaulter^{underthe provisionsof The Employees'} State Insurance Act, 1943^{(DSIC Act) and requested the petitioner} to appear before the respondent^{No.2 on 15.06.2017for hearing.}

¶74

The facts as^presented to the Court^{indicate that the} respondent No.3-M/s. St. Pauls Day-cum-Residential^{School is the} primary defaulter/employer under the ESIC Act.^{The respondent} No.3 however failed to respond to a^{notice sent by the respondent} No.2 on 30.05.2017 stating that the respondent^{No.3 was a} defaulting unit under the ESIC Act. A copy of^{the said notice was} also sent to the petitioner. The^{petitioner repliedto this notice on} 05.06.2017. The respondent No.2 sent a reminder^{to the petitioner} ort 07.06.2017 and followed it up with the impugned^{notices dated} 16.06.20 17 and 22.06.20 17 .

¶75

The impugned notices are under section 45G(3)(x) of^the ESIC Act. Under this provision, ifa person to whom a notice under

\ \

.{ I

)

i I

section 45G(3) of the ESIC Act is sent fails to make payment to the Authorized Officer, the person shall be deemed to be a principal or a immediate employer in default in respect of the amount specified in the notice and the concerned authorities shall be entitled to proceed against him for realization of the amount as if it were an arrear due from him. The said provision further mentions that a notice under section a5c(3)(x) of the ESIC Act shall have the same effect as an attachment of a debt by the Recovery Ofhcer in exercise of his powers under section 4SC of the ESIC Act. Section 45C of the ESIC Act authorizes the Recovery Officer to recover the amounts specified from the factory or the establishment by the modes mentioned in sub-sections (a) to (c) of section 45C(l) of the ESIC Act.

¶81

In the present case, the respondent No.3, who is the principal defaulter, fa ed to reply to the notice dated 30.05.2017 and hence the respondent No.2 issued the impugrred notices to the petitionei under section 4SG(3)(d of the ESIC Act. The respondent No.2 is statutorily entitled to send such notices. However, since the petitioner's case is that the petitioner could not appear for the hearing before the respondent No.2 by the reason of receiving the he aring notices after the date on which the hearing was fixed, W.P.Nos.26910 and 23816 of 2OlZ, a-long with all connected applications, are disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders

¶82

¶83

giving liberty to the respondent No.2 to call the petitioner for hearing to get clarit5r on the petitioner,s argument that the entity mentioned in the Statement of Account in 2OIZ as having an account in the petitioner,s Bank is not the same entity as respondent No.3 in the writ petition.

¶84

Needless to say, the respondent No.2 shall take further steps against the petitioner, if statutorily provided for, in accordance with law.

¶85

The interim order obtained by the petitioner from a Co-ordinate Bench on LI.OB.2O|T is vacated. There shall be no

¶86

order as to costs.

¶87

SD/. K.^AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

cIoN^OFFICER

To 1. The Secretary,^{Government of lnclia'fulinistry} ^{^{ofr Labour Labour} ^h^i^{rr and Employment and trmalovment and Employment and trmalovment and trmalovment}^Ne'vewew

¶92

^{^{ofr Labour Labour} ^h^i^{rr and Employment and trmalovment and Employment and trmalovment and trmalovment}^Ne'vewew

¶93

, ?frIhu"ou"ry^{officer,Employees State lnsurance Corporation Government} of lndia,^Ministry "t^{LtolliJl"'iiErn-privrn"ni s-s-ze'Hill Fort Road'} Hvderabad^{- 063'}

¶94

l.3'ligili:niEmT^vsltil,ff*"a,Tlg',liv'3313'o*.ENERAL oF INDIA^(oPUC)

¶95

s 6 ;,j' ;Z'^{;'s-Rr 1r. trnvtu o enR E D DY'A{v-oc-a-!g( o P u c )} 6. One CC^{to sRt c.vE'Niidi-is'H-v"A-Riit'isc,ron'rslc)Advocate[oPUCl} ; 5;; dc i"^{rt'vt ANJALi ncAnwnl'Advocate[oPUCl}

¶96

B. Two^{CD CoPies} SA

HIGH COURT

DATED:1111212024

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.26910 AND 23816 of 2017

¶104

6 5 Tt,r€
t
e
o 05 FtB 2[6
* I
Des PAI C

¶105

DISPOSING OF THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS

¶106

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶107

@
b\ I

State Bank of India, Rr Dist v. Union of India, and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India, Rr Dist v. Union of India, and 2 Others

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

Augh Sign., M/S.Sethi Housing India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and 3 Vs Regional Manager, Rbi, Hyderabad and 2 Others

K. Yellaiah Vs Malladi Malla Reddy

Ganta Srinivasulu Vs Union of India

Scion Foods and Feeds Pvt. Limited, Vs Punjab National Bank Bank

Shakamuri Sravan Kumar Vs Shakamuri Haritha

Mohammed Irfan Vs The Union of India