N.NANDAKUMAR v. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
He only prays forappropriate directions to the effect that coercive steps torecover the amounts demanded may not be initiated untilhis restoration petition is disposed of one way or the other
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. I notice that the petitioner has already submittedan application for restoration of his appeal that has beendismissed for non prosecution. He only prays forappropriate directions to the effect that coercive steps torecover the amounts demanded may not be initiated untilhis restoration petition is disposed…
Judgment
WPC No.11669/2010 2the second respondent. Since the petitioner wasaggrieved by the order of reassessment passed againsthim, the petitioner had challenged the same before thefirst respondent - Appellate Tribunal by filing an appealagainst the same. Despite the pendency of the appeal, when coercive steps were initiated against the petitionerfor recovery of the assessed amounts, the petitioner hadapproached this Court by filing WPC No.32952/2008.Ext.P3 is the judgment in the said writ petition. The samehas been disposed of directing the first respondent toconsider the interim prayers made by the petitionerexpeditiously. All further coercive proceedings forrecovery of the amount disputed by the petitioner in hisappeal was also granted.
Subsequently the petitioner was served with anotice requiring him to appear before the first respondentat Delhi on 3.9.2009. However, since he was not in aposition to proceed to Delhi and to attend the hearing, hesent Ext.P5 telegram requesting for a postponement of thehearing. Thereafter, by Ext.P6, his appeal has beendismissed for the reason that he was not present when the WPC No.11669/2010 3case was called by the first respondent on 7.1.2010. Thepetitioner has already submitted Ext.P7 petition forrestoration of the appeal. In the meanwhile, he filed W.P.(C) No.5485/2010 alleging that coercive steps wereinitiated against him for recovery of the amountsdemanded, which has been disposed of by Ext.P8judgment. In view of the said judgment, the petitionerseeks a similar direction in this case also.
Adv.V.V.Suresh who appears for the EmployeesProvident Fund Organization, opposes the prayer of thepetitioner pointing out that large amounts are due fromthe petitioner to the Employees Provident FundOrganization and therefore, any order can be granted onlysubject to payment of a substantial amount.
Operative part
I notice that the petitioner has already submittedan application for restoration of his appeal that has beendismissed for non prosecution. He only prays forappropriate directions to the effect that coercive steps torecover the amounts demanded may not be initiated untilhis restoration petition is disposed of one way or the other.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is WPC No.11669/2010 4disposed of directing the first respondent to consider andpass orders on the restoration petition filed by thepetitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P7 and to passappropriate orders thereon expeditiously, after issuingnotice to and hearing the other parties to the petition also. Till final orders are passed on Ext.P7, all further coercivesteps to recover the amounts demanded from thepetitioner shall remain stayed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: He only prays forappropriate directions to the effect that coercive steps torecover the amounts demanded may not be initiated untilhis restoration petition is disposed of one way or the other
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 06 Apr 2010. The bench was K SURENDRA MOHAN.
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.