✦ Bombay High Court · 10 Jul 2012

Centre of Science for Village Sangrahalaya v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner) Office Notes, Memoranda & Anr.

Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2011R K DESHPANDE

Case at a glance

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1580 of 2011 (Centre of Science for Village Sangrahalaya v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's order Court's or Judge's orders Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for Petitioner. Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 10th July, 2012 A show cause notice dated 9-6-2003 was issued to the petitioner in respect of the damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the penalty under Section 7-Q of the said Act indicating that the damages to the tune of Rs.2,10,810/- and the penalty of Rs.7.912/- are proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner. A detailed statement showing the amounts due under Sections 7-Q and 14B of the said act was also furnished. No reply was given in respect of delay in making the payments. Certain documents were placed on record of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, after taking into consideration the delay caused in making the payments, confirmed the damages and penalty proposed in the show cause notice, by his order dated 18-10-2004. 2 1007wp1580.11.odt The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, bearing ATA No. 249(9)/2005, which has been dismissed on 24-1-2011. Shri Ghate, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, could not point out any infirmity in the statement annexed to the show cause notice. He also could not point out any reason for delay in making the payments. In view of this, no fault can be found with the orders passed by the authorities below. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2011). ← Search more judgments