Full Text
Translation output
$-5 to 9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) + W.P.(C) 8597/2015 & CrLM.A.No.18678/2015
M/S. HAMAR TELEVISION NETWORK PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Singh, Advocate
M/S. HAMAR TELEVISION NETWORK PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DELHI (NORTH) DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. R.C.Chawla, Standing Counsel for RPFC-Respondent with
Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate (ii) + W.P.(C) 8599/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.18679/2015
M/S. NORTH EAST MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.C.Chawla, Standing Counsel for RPFC-Respondent with
Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate (ii) + W.P.(C) 8599/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.18679/2015
M/S. NORTH EAST MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD Petitioner
VERSUS
(iii) + W.P.(C) 8601/2015 & CrLM.A.No.18682/2015
M/S. M3 MEDIA PVT LTD Petitioner
M/S. M3 MEDIA PVT LTD Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C) Nos.8597, 8599,8601,8602 &8607of2015 Page 1
2015:DHC:11544 (iv) + W.P.(C) 8602/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.18683/2015
M/S. POSITIVE RADIO PVT LTD Petitioner
2015:DHC:11544 (iv) + W.P.(C) 8602/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.18683/2015
M/S. POSITIVE RADIO PVT LTD Petitioner
VERSUS
for RPFC-Respondentwith (v) + W.P.(C) 8607/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.18699/2015
M/S. HY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. RajeevSingh, Advocate
M/S. HY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. RajeevSingh, Advocate
VERSUS
for RPFC-Respondentwith
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.09.2015 In the above-captioned five petitions, impugned order of21®^ July, 2015 is assailed on identical grounds and so these five petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Vide
W.P.(C) Nos.8597, 8599, 8601,8602 &8607 of2015 Page 2 v_ impugned order, petitioners' appeals under The Employees' Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 stand dismissed as barred by time. The statutory period to file the said appeal is 60 days and under the aforesaid enactment, the delay of another 60 days can be condoned whereas inthe instant matters, the delay isofabout 300 days.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
Managing Director of petitioner-companies was ill and laterinvolved in a criminal case and was in custody so, theappeals could notbe filed within the period of 120 days and that the amount due has been already deposited and petitioners are ready to pay the interest on the delay occasioned. The prayer made is for waiver of the damages, which are said to be of ?1 crore approximately in these five matters. It is submitted that due to financial difficulty, petitioners are unable to pay the dues and that on account of illness of the Managing Director of the petitioner- companies inadvertent lapses occurred, which deserve to be condoned.
On behalf of respondent-i?eg/o«a/ Fund Provident Commissioner, attention of this Court has been drawn to decisions of Division Bench of this Court in Shree Shyamkamal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia &
Ors. 2005 VII AD (Delhi) 155 and Saint Soldier Modern Senior
Secondary School v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2014 SCC
Online Del.4496 to submit that The Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a special enactment and so Section
5 oftheLimitation Act has no application.
Upon hearing, and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that there is an absolute prohibition to condone the delay beyond the period of 120 days. Applying the
W.P.[C) Nos.8597, 8599, 8601, 8602 &8607 of2015 ~ pgge 3
V. u dictum of decisions of Division Bencli of this Court in Shree
Shyamkamal (Supra) and Saint Soldier (supra), to the facts ofthe instant cases, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegahty or infirmity.
Consequentially, these petitions and applications are dismissed.
(SUML GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 08,2015 vn W.P.(C] Nos.8597, 8599, 8601, 8602 &8607 of2015 Page 4
08.09.2015 In the above-captioned five petitions, impugned order of21®^ July, 2015 is assailed on identical grounds and so these five petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Vide
W.P.(C) Nos.8597, 8599, 8601,8602 &8607 of2015 Page 2 v_ impugned order, petitioners' appeals under The Employees' Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 stand dismissed as barred by time. The statutory period to file the said appeal is 60 days and under the aforesaid enactment, the delay of another 60 days can be condoned whereas inthe instant matters, the delay isofabout 300 days.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
Managing Director of petitioner-companies was ill and laterinvolved in a criminal case and was in custody so, theappeals could notbe filed within the period of 120 days and that the amount due has been already deposited and petitioners are ready to pay the interest on the delay occasioned. The prayer made is for waiver of the damages, which are said to be of ?1 crore approximately in these five matters. It is submitted that due to financial difficulty, petitioners are unable to pay the dues and that on account of illness of the Managing Director of the petitioner- companies inadvertent lapses occurred, which deserve to be condoned.
On behalf of respondent-i?eg/o«a/ Fund Provident Commissioner, attention of this Court has been drawn to decisions of Division Bench of this Court in Shree Shyamkamal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia &
Ors. 2005 VII AD (Delhi) 155 and Saint Soldier Modern Senior
Secondary School v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2014 SCC
Online Del.4496 to submit that The Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a special enactment and so Section
5 oftheLimitation Act has no application.
Upon hearing, and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that there is an absolute prohibition to condone the delay beyond the period of 120 days. Applying the
W.P.[C) Nos.8597, 8599, 8601, 8602 &8607 of2015 ~ pgge 3
V. u dictum of decisions of Division Bencli of this Court in Shree
Shyamkamal (Supra) and Saint Soldier (supra), to the facts ofthe instant cases, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegahty or infirmity.
Consequentially, these petitions and applications are dismissed.
(SUML GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 08,2015 vn W.P.(C] Nos.8597, 8599, 8601, 8602 &8607 of2015 Page 4
JUDGMENT