M/s. Aircon India Incorporated, Tivoli Court & Anr. v. Employees’ Provident Funds Organization & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 shall also stand dismissed.
Judgment
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Gupta, Mr. Subhadeep Maitra. Mrs. Aparna Banerjee. …For the appellants. …For the respondents.
The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 14th January, 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.A. No. 23974 of 2024.
Admittedly, a sum of Rs.30,85,986/- is due and payable towards interest of arrears of Provident Fund calculated by the respondents under Section 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
The learned Single Judge was generous enough to grant eight instalments to the petitioners against a prayer for sixteen instalments. The impugned order is fair. One could have understood the bona fides of the appellants had they at least paid one instalment or the two that have already accrued and were payable to the Employees’ Provident Fund Authorities.
In that view of the matter, since not a single farthing has been paid even under eight instalments 2 granted to the appellants and given the fact that a sum of Rs.30,85,986/- is payable, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 14th January, 2025 calls for absolutely no interference.
M.A.T. No. 155 of 2025 shall stand dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 shall also stand dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, 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.