Dismissed

M/s. Vbc Ferro Alloys Ltd. , v. Union of India

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024WP/34950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice for arrest issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The court held that the petitioner had substantial outstanding dues, failed to offer credible defense, and neglected to act on a prior interim order for eight years, rendering writ intervention unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected applications are dismissed without costs; interim orders stand vacated.

M/s. Vbc Ferro Alloys Ltd. , Vs Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴⁰⁵ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHAfiACHARYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 34950 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. VBC Ferro Alloys Ltd. ,, A Company^{regislered under the} Act, Having its RegiStered Office at 6- 2- 9131914,^{3rd Floor,} -Companies^Prog.ressive Towers, Khairtabad-, Hyderabad, Telangana,^Factory at^{RudraramVillage,} Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, Rep. by^{its authorizedsignatory-}

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

I Union of lndia, Ministry of Labour and Employment,^{Employees Provident} Fund Organization, Bdvishya Nidhi Bhavan,^{New Delhi, Rep.by its Additional} Central Provident Fund Commissioner.

¶12

2 Regional Provldent Fund Commissioner and Authority,^{U/s. 7A of EPF and} MdAct, The Employees Provident Organization,^{Regional Office, Patancheru,} 12- 1, Susheeram Complex, Patancheru, Sangareddy^{District - 502319, Rep.} by its Recovery Officer.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of^{the 2nd respondent in issuing Notice to} show cause why a warrant of arrest should^{not be issued vide Office Letter No.} TS/RO/PTC/1 7192lRecy- CP125120241589, dated^{22' 11- 2024 without considering} the representation submitted by the^{petitioner dated 09- 09- 2024 and in not} considering the representation dated 22-^{02- 2016in true spirit by granting an} opportunity of^personal hearing as arbitrary,^{illegal, unjust, violative of principlesof} Natural Justice, violative of the Fundamental^{Rights guaranteedunderArticles 14} and 19 of the Constitution of^lndia, in^{the facts and circumstances set out} hereunder and consequently set aside^{the same and consequently direct the 2nd} respondent^given an opportunity to^{physically represent beforeit beforeinitiating} any action pursuant to the order No.^{AP/SRO/PTC/171921PDCeU/1 48} Orders/2014/36806, dated 06- 11- 2015 under^{U/s. 148 and7Q of EPF and MP} Act 1952

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 Stay of all further^{proceedings pursuant} to notice to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not be issued vide office Letter No. TSiRO/PTC/^'17192/Recy- CP 25120241589, Daled 22- 11- 2024 issued by the 2ND respondent,^pending disposal of the above Writ Petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GRS AKHILESWAR

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE^{WSTICEMOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA} WRIT PETITION^{NO.34950oF 20.24}

¶25

Mr. Raja Shekar^{Rao Salvaji' tearnedcounsel for the petitioner'} fnl.. CfiS Akhileswar,^{leamed counsel for the respondents'}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

AII tJle respondents^{are represented'}

¶28

The writ^{petition has beenfiled against a notice issued by the} respondent^{No.2-The Regional ProvidentFund Commissioner dated} 22.11.2024 for^{the petitioner to show-cause as to why a warrant of arrest} should not^{be issued againstthe petitioner'} 3. The impugned^{notice has been issuedunder sections7A' 7Q and} 148 of The^{Employees'Provident Funds and Miscellaneous ProvisionsAct'} 1952 (EPF Act).^{The petitioner was asked to appear before tJle Regional} Provident Fund^{Commissioneron 16'122024at O2:30p'm'}

¶29

karned counsel^{appearing for the petitioner submits that the} impugned notice^{emanates from the fact of the petitioner companybeing} closed in 2o13^{and the management of the petilionercompany entered into} a Memorandum^{of Settlementwith the workerson 30'06'2014 whereby the} management^{agreed to pay full compensationto the workersfrom} Oi.O9.2O13^{to 3O.I 1.2O13 as wellas the statutorybenefits'The Settlement} involved other^{issueswhich would appear from the Memorandum'}

¶30

Counsel submits^{that certain sums were paid to the workerson} various dates uP^to August, 2013.^{Counselsubmits that the} Fund Authorities^{however issued 2notices on} respondents/^Provident O8.O5.2O15 and^{thereafter on O6'11'2015 under sections 7A' 7Q and l4B} of the EPF^Act.

¶31

¶32

¶33

counsel submits that t].e petitioner complied with the frrst notice dated 08.05.2015 and also that both the notices consist of contradictory content.

¶34

lrarned counsel appearing for the respondents/ provident Fund Authorities submits that the petitioner has filed an earlier w.p.No.9443 of 2o16 seeking orders against the respondents incruding against a notice for proclamation of sale dated 16.02-2016. counsel further places an order passed by a learned single Judge of this court on 22.03.2016 containing an interim direction to the provident Fund Authorities to consider the petilioner's representation dated, 22.O2.2O I 6.

¶35

counsel submits that the provident Fund Authorities considered the representation and passed the order dated 3r.o3.2016 stating that trrere are outstanding dues from the petiLioner under section s 7A, Ze and 14B of the EPF Act amounting to a total of Rs. 1,16,50 ,5lg /-. At this stage, it must be mentioned that, though counsel appearing for the petitioner disputes the factum of notice dated 3r.o3.2016 by referring to a notice dated 31.o3.2o19, in a document dated 22-71.2023, the fact remains *rat the dates of 31.o3.2016 and 31.o3-2o19 would appear from the retters issued by the Provident Fund Authorities.

¶36

The Court has heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. Despite the confusion with regard to the date on which the provident Fund Authorities disposed of the representation pursuant to the order of the Court dated 22.03.20 16, there is little doubt that the petitioner

¶37

¶38

¶39

company^{owes substantial amounts to the Provident Fund Authorities} under the EPF^Act.

¶40

11.^{The petitioner has not givenany credible explanaLion or shown any} documentwhichwouldbeagooddefencetothenoticesissuedbythe Provident^{FundAuthorities.The impugned documentis merely a show-} cause notice^{issuedto the petitioneron 22'll '2024 '} Moreover' tl.e petitioner was asked^{to apPear beforethe Provident Fund Authoritieson} 16.12.2024 at^{O2:3Op.m. to show-causeas to why the petitioner should} not be committed^{to the civil prison. The petitionerseeks intervention of} the Writ Court,^{for stay of the said notice'}

¶41

This Court^{is not inclinedto stay the impugned notice also for the} fact that the^{petitioner obtainedan order from a learned Single Judgeof} thisCourton22.03.2016directingthePFauthoritiestodisposeofthe petitioner,srepresentations.TheProvidentFundAuthoritiesthereafter informed the^{petitioneron 3 I .03'2016 that penaltydamagesmay be} waivedbutthatduesofRs.l'16,5o,5lgf.werestilloutstandingfromthe petitionerundertheprovisionsoftheEPFAct.Thepetitioneradmittedly took no steps^{for 8 years from 31'03'2016till filing of the present writ} petition in December^2O24.

¶42

The above^{factsdo not deserve any intervention from the Writ Court'} ThepetitionerhassoughttoinvokethewritjurisdictionofthisCourteven on an earlier occasion.^{The petitionerhas not madeout any case for} intervention of^{the Court in the formof a credible defenceor otherwise or}

¶43

¶44

even the ground of the petitioner's constitutional rights have been violated by ttre Provident Fund Authorities. More importantry, the petitioner has been given a,, opportunit,r to appea-r before the provident Fund Authorities which the petitioner should avail of.

¶45

1,4 . W.P.No.349SO of 2024, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSIS T REGISTRAR

¶50

,) TION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

One CC to SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

One CC to SRI GRS AKHILESWAR Advocate IOPUCI

¶54

Two CD Copies

KKS BSR v

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 2l,1212024

ORDER

1 y.f,.:iIz'1; (j
(,.. :.
a
\_
>
U
i) 0 7 rFa 2025
{. ()Fj,.ipAT

¶61

WP.No.34950 of 2024

¶62

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

5 4.,,3 ry'/$

M/s. Vbc Ferro Alloys Ltd. , v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vbc Ferro Alloys Ltd. , v. 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

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

Shakamuri Sravan Kumar Vs Shakamuri Haritha

Mohammed Irfan Vs The Union of India

Ellaiah Maddi Vs The Union of India

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Tradings Vs The State of Telangana

Sri R. Devender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana