M/s Sri Chakra Cements Ltd, Durganagar Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad v. Venkateswarlu
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
M/s Sri Chakra Cements Ltd, Durganagar Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, rep. by its General Manager (Finance), V. Venkateswarlu S/o V.V. Ratnam, R/o Hyderabad. AND 1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 Enforcement Officer, Accounts Group, O/o Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in directing attachment of the Bank Account of the petitioner and proceeding with recovery of the amount contained in the order of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No,. AP/GNT/ENF.I /16470/2004/273 dated 11-6-2004 when the appeal filed by the petitioner in ATA 545 (1) 2004 is pending before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, is arbitrary and illegal and directs the respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the amount covered by the order of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No. AP/GNT/ENF.I/16470/2004/273 dated 11-6-2004 during the pendency of the appeal before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for Respondents: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court Made the Following
ORDER:
Operative part
The petitioner establishment was served with the impugned order dated 11-6- 2004, passed by the first respondent under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, levying penal damages of Rs.8,09,558.15 ps., for the period from April 1999 to March 2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal bearing Case No.ATA.545 (1) 2004 before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi along with stay petition and waiver of deposit petition also. But, since the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is not appointed, the said appeal has not taken up and the same is still pending. Hence, the petitioner moved this court by way of filing the present writ petition praying to declare the impugned order dated 11-6-2004, passed by the first respondent, as illegal and void. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, who fairly submitted that the matter can be disposed of in the light of usual orders passed by this Court in cases of statutory remedy of appeal. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, on condition of the petitioner depositing 50 percent of the penal damages levied by the first respondent through the impugned order, within a period of six weeks from today, the impugned order is stayed. On such deposit, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, without insisting for any further deposit of the penal damages. However, the impugned order shall not be enforced by the first respondent, if the conditional order is complied with, till the appeal filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the second respondent. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ A. Gopal Reddy, J. 20th August, 2004. Js. To // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 Enforcement Officer, Accounts Group, O/o Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Guntur. 3 2 CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 11 Jun 2004. The bench was A GOPAL REDDY.
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.