The Assistant Provident Commissioner (Legal), Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavisyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura v. The Official Liquidator
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V ESWARAIAH
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
The Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P., 3-5-398, 1st Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad-500 195. ..... PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
ORDER:
Operative part
Seeking a Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not releasing the claim amount of Rs.43,57,794/- which was allowed by the respondent through proceedings dated 29.01.2003 and in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 05.04.2004 with regard to release of balance amount of Rs.1,34,833/-, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Official Liquidator. The petitioner submits that M/s.Republic Forge Co.Ltd., was covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in Code No.AP/2914, and the said company was fell due certain contribution payable to the petitioner. But, however, the said company went in liquidation and the respondent was appointed as Liquidator. The claim petition of the petitioner was allowed to an extent of Rs.43,57,794/- by proceedings dated 29.01.2003, but the said amount has not been released. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 05.04.2004 before the respondent, but the said representation has not been disposed of. It is stated that in addition to the said amount, the petitioner was also entitled for release of balance amount of Rs.1,34,833/-. As the representation of the petitioner dated 05.04.2004 is pending consideration with the respondent, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 05.04.2004, in accordance with law, within a period of 8 (eight) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 25.11.2005 Dsr
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
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.