Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, on petitioner depositing 50% of the amount so demanded, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, all further steps pursuant to the impugned order…
Judgment
Cause title
Lake Hill road, Hyderabad rep by Director (Admn) Mr. P.V. Ramana (GPA Holder) AND ... PETITIONER
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Endorecement) Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, O/o The Provident Fund Commissioner Barkatpura, Hyderabad & (The Authority Under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) ...RESPONDENT
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, or Direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondent from giving effect to the orders passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act dated 29-7-2004 claiming an amount of 60,63, 725/- Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondent: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court at the admission stage made the following Order:
ORDER:
Against the order dated 29-07-2004 passed by the respondent assessing the Provident Fund payable by the petitioner under Section 7-A of the Employee’s Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (for short ‘the Act’) the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Tribunal on 27- 08-2004. As the Tribunal is not functioning, the petitioner could not obtain any stay pursuant to the demand made by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner moved this Court by way of present Writ Petition questioning the orders passed by the second respondent under Sections 7-A and 7-B of the Act.
It is well settled proposition of law that when the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner is pending against the same order, the Writ petition for the same relief cannot be entertained. (See 1995 (1) SCC 642).
Operative part
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, on petitioner depositing 50% of the amount so demanded, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, all further steps pursuant to the impugned order are stayed pending disposal of the appeal. On such depositing, the appellate authority shall proceed with the same without insisting for deposit of 75% of the amount. The amount so deposited shall be subject to the result of the appeal filed by the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J August 31, 2004 MRR/MURTHY To:
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement) Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, O/o The Provident Fund Commissioner Barkatpura, Hyderabad & (The Authority Under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952). 2 Two C.D. Copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Employee’s Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 31 Aug 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.