W.P No. 13612 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Aug 2009
- Bench
- N V RAMANA
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
The petitioner, namely Alapati Dharma Rao Co-operative Sugars Limited, represented by its Managing Director, filed the present writ petition, praying for the following relief: further proceedings, To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in attaching under the warrant of attachment No. RO/GNT/13957/Recy (GNT)/2009, dated No. 26.03.2009 AP/RO/GNT/13957/RECY/GNT/2009, dated 09.06.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent as being illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sugar Control Order, 1966 and the release order issued thereunder by the 1st respondent-Government of India in favour of the petitioner and further direct the respondents to permit the sale of the sugar stocks to pay the Provident Fund dues as per the provisions of Sugar Control Order, 1966 and release orders issued by the 1st respondent-Government of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. including notice The petitioner by pledging its sugar stocks availed loan from respondent No.4-Bank on 07.08.2007.
The said loan still remains unpaid. While so, on the ground that the petitioner failed to remit the EPF contributions in respect of its employees, respondent No.2-EPF Organization, passed the impugned order dated 26.03.2009, attaching the sugar stocks of the petitioner, which were already pledged with respondent No.4-Bank. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to set aside the order dated 26.03.2009 and permit them to sell the sugar stocks as per the Sugar Control Order, 1966 so to clear the provident fund dues. Respondent No.4-Bank filed counter. However, the petitioner filed a petition in W.P.M.P. No.17736 of 2009, praying for the following relief: To permit the petitioner to sell the sugar stocks under the joint supervision of 2nd and 4th respondents as per the provisions of Sugar Control Order, 1966 and release orders issued by the 1st respondent-Government of India and remit the proceeds towards the payment of provident fund dues owned to the 2nd respondent and the balance towards pledge loan owed to the 4th respondent-Bank pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-EPF Organization and the learned counsel for respondent No.4-Bank expressed no objection for allowing the prayed sought by the petitioner in the aforementioned W.P.M.P., and agreed for disposal of the writ petition itself with the following directions: W.P.M.P. No. 17736 of 2009 is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to sell the stocks under attachment as per the provisions of Sugar Control Order, 1966 under the joint supervision of the representatives of respondent No.2-EPF Organization and respondent No.4-Bank. The sale proceeds received from such sale,
Operative part
shall first be adjusted against the dues payable by the petitioner to respondent No.2-EPF Organization, and thereafter, the balance amount will be adjusted against the loan dues of respondent No.4- Bank, and if after clearing the dues of respondent Nos. 2 and 4, any amount still remains, the same shall be retained by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Date: 5th August, 2009 KSR ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Aug 2009. The bench was N V RAMANA.
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.