Writ Petition No. 1300 of 2006 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the Full Bench order cited above, this WritPetition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21-01-2010CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No. 1300 of 2006 Asian Bearing LimitedRep. By its General ManagerNew No.25, Old No.14Peters Road, RoyapettahChennai-600 014. .. PetitionerV.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza Anna Salai, Swarnapuri Salem-636 004.
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza Anna Salai, Swarnapuri Salem-636 004.
The Recovery Officer Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza Anna Salai, Swarnapuri Salem-636 004. .. RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing therespondents or their men or agents or sub-ordinates from taking anysteps to recover any amount towards the Provident Fund Contributionpursuant to the order of the first respondent in Proceedings No.TN/SRO/SLM/COMP-I/17496/KNG-II/2005 dated 26.12.2005.For petitioner: Mr. R. Parthiban For respondents : Mr. K. Gunasekaran Additional Central Government Standing Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
O R D E RAt this stage of the hearing of this Writ Petition, the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed before this Court an order passed by the Full Bench of this Court, reported in Gowri Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs.Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner &another, (2006(5) CTC(1)) wherein, it has been held that the Provident Fund dues, under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952,are not covered by Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985.2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hasnot refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondent. 3. In view of the Full Bench order cited above, this WritPetition stands dismissed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst. Registrararr/kjTo1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza Anna Salai, Swarnapuri Salem-636 004.2.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza Anna Salai, Swarnapuri Salem-636 004.3.The Recovery Officer Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza Anna Salai, Swarnapuri Salem-636 004.1 cc to Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate, Sr.No.38921 cc to Mr.K.Gunasekar, Advocate, Sr.No.3870W. P. No. 1300 of 2006RSY {CO}TP/5.2.2010.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the Full Bench order cited above, this WritPetition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — s. 22(1).
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.