Full Text
Translation output
$-^1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 10184/2015 & CM 25126/2015 (stay)
M/S AGASTI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr Kailash Pandey and Ms Arunima Pal, Advs.
W.P.(C) 10184/2015 & CM 25126/2015 (stay)
M/S AGASTI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr Kailash Pandey and Ms Arunima Pal, Advs.
VERSUS
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER -IINASHIK
Respondent
Through: Mr R.C. Chawla and Ms Inderjeet Sidhu, Advs.
Respondent
Through: Mr R.C. Chawla and Ms Inderjeet Sidhu, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
17.11.2015 The challenge in this writ petitionunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 29.09.2015 passed by Presiding Officer
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal whereby an order has beenpassed notto recover more than 50% of the assessed amount.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 14B of Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1956 alongwith an application under Section 70 of the aforesaid Act for waiver of the condition to pre-deposit the assessed amount and no request was made for stay of the impugned order. However, instead of considering the said application moved by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit of assessed amount, the impugned order has been passed.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that since the order is silent about the order under Section 70 of the Act as such the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal.
Keeping in view the fact that no application for stay of the impugned order was moved by the petitioner and ratheran application for waiver frompre-deposit wasmoved which was not considered by the Tribunal as such the matter is remanded back to the
Competent Authority for passing appropriate order after considering the rival
2015:DHC:11496 r submissions of learned counsel for the parties within two (2) weeks of receipt of this order. Till then no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner.
The petition stands disposedof in terms of this order.
Pending CM also stands disposed of A copy ofthis order be sent to the Tribunal.
Order dasti. f i G , SUNITA GUPTA, J NOVEMBER 17, 2015/.^
2015:DHC:11496
17.11.2015 The challenge in this writ petitionunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 29.09.2015 passed by Presiding Officer
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal whereby an order has beenpassed notto recover more than 50% of the assessed amount.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 14B of Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1956 alongwith an application under Section 70 of the aforesaid Act for waiver of the condition to pre-deposit the assessed amount and no request was made for stay of the impugned order. However, instead of considering the said application moved by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit of assessed amount, the impugned order has been passed.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that since the order is silent about the order under Section 70 of the Act as such the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal.
Keeping in view the fact that no application for stay of the impugned order was moved by the petitioner and ratheran application for waiver frompre-deposit wasmoved which was not considered by the Tribunal as such the matter is remanded back to the
Competent Authority for passing appropriate order after considering the rival
2015:DHC:11496 r submissions of learned counsel for the parties within two (2) weeks of receipt of this order. Till then no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner.
The petition stands disposedof in terms of this order.
Pending CM also stands disposed of A copy ofthis order be sent to the Tribunal.
Order dasti. f i G , SUNITA GUPTA, J NOVEMBER 17, 2015/.^
2015:DHC:11496
JUDGMENT