M/s Eastern Neptha Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Bokaro v. Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour, Govt
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner For the Respondent-EPFO For the Respondent-Bank ----- : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Sumit Kumar, AC to Mr. Kislay Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate ----- 04/12.04.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to I.A. No. 2853 of 2022 submits that the petitioner wants to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the order dated 07.08.2020 (reassessed vide letter dated
Operative part
09.09.2021) passed under Section 7-A of the said Act. It is further submitted that pursuant to issuance of prohibitory orders by the Recovery Officer/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Chas Branch, Bokaro and the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Balidih Branch, Bokaro vide letter No. JH/DO/BOKARO/RECOVERY/4881/2021/7086/ 2369 and letter No. JH/DO/BOKARO/RECOVERY/4881/2021/7085/ 2368 respectively both dated 22.09.2021, an amount of Rs. 25,93,468/- assessed under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 has already been realized by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization. Mr. Sumit Kumar, AC to Mr. Kislay Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-EPFO and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, have no objection to the said prayer. In view of the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. I.A. No. 2853 of 2022 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 2612 of 2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking amendment in the writ petition also stands disposed of. Manish (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
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.