M/s. Aruna Ancillary Industries, Unit No.B-10, B.H.E.L. Ancillary Estate, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad-32 v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Oct 2005
- Bench
- K C BHANU
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 21.04.2005, the present Writ Petition is filed. The impugned order, which is a show-cause notice-cum-levy order, shows that certain penal damages and interest have been estimated by the authorities. The authority or jurisdiction of the officer who passed the order is not under challenge. So also, it is not the case of violation of principles of natural justice or statutory right of the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to pay interest as demanded. The impugned order is appellable under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the petitioner to file appeal before the competent appellate authority within a period of four weeks from today, and on such filing, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Till such time, there shall be no recovery with regard to penal damages. The petitioner shall pay the interest as demanded in the impugned order within a period of four weeks from today. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.)
07.10.2005 DRK
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.