M/S SPEED CRAFTS LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Assistant Provident Officer (Compliance), Bihar, who, by his order dated 7.8.2008 passed under Sections 7A and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, has held the petitioner liable to deposit an amount of Rs. 80,32,914/- within fifteen days of the receipt of the order, which order has been allegedly received by the petitioner on 14.8.2008 but on 26.8.2008 itself all the Accounts of the petitioner in the Branches of various Banks in which they are maintained were attached and their Branch Managers were directed to send the outstanding sum by way of demand draft to the Employees Provident Fund Organization. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 7-I of the Act statutory remedy of appeal to be filed within 60 days is provided to the petitioner and the said action of the respondents has the effect of making its statutory rights nugatory. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the direction that the impugned order dated 7.8.2008 and the orders of attachment shall remain in abeyance till the filing of the statutory appeal by the petitioner within the period of limitation prescribed by - 2 - the Statute along with filing of an application for stay for the same and until the first day on which the said stay petition is taken up by the appellate authority for hearing. Mr. Shivaji Pandey, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits on the basis of instructions received by him that the petitioner undertakes that an amount to the extent of Rs. 80,32,914/- shall always be maintained by the petitioner in its Bank Account with the State Bank of India, Patliputra Branch, Patna. Let the said undertaking be filed by the petitioner in Court within a period of three days from today. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.