SANSKAR TRUST THROUGH MANAGINGTRUST BALDEVBHAI PATEL v. ASSTT. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 20/10/97 ORAL JUDGMENT
1.(cid:9)Challenge has been made by the petitioner to the order dated 17th March 1990 passed by respondent No.1 under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
2.(cid:9)The petitioner stated in the Special Civil Application that it has filed review application against the said order which is pending. The order of respondent No.1 dated 17th March 1990 has been passed under section 7-A of the aforesaid Act and against this order, a statutory right of appeal under section 7-I of the Act has been provided. The day on which this Special Civil Application has been filed, the Central Government had not constituted any appellate tribunal under section 7-A of the said Act but now the Tribunal has been constituted. Where the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy available against the impugned order, this writ petition is not maintainable.
3.(cid:9)In the result, this Special Civil Application fails and the same is dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy against the impugned order. However, it is made clear that the appellate tribunal may not dismiss the appeal, if any, filed by petitioner, against the impugned order within a period of one month from today, only on the ground of limitation and the same may be decided on merits. Rule therein discharged subject to aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. ....... (sunil)
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.