Telangana High Court

WP/25232/2004 of M/s. Vijaya Laxmi Industries Plot No. B1, Industrial Estate, Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Sub-Regional on 31 December 2004

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25232 of 2004 Between: M/s.Vijayalaxmi Industries,Plot No.B1, Industrial Estage,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

WRIT PETITION NO : 25232 of 2004

Between:

M/s.Vijayalaxmi Industries,Plot No.B1,

Industrial Estage, Sultanabad, Tenali, Guntur.

AND

1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,Sub-Regional Office, Laxmipuram Guntur.

2. The Recovery Officer and Regional P.F.Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund,Sub-Regional Officer, Guntur.

..... PETITIONER

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the action of therespondents in passing the order dt.24.4.2003 and also order of attachment inNo.AP/SRO/GNT/33304/Recy.Cell/Rc.No.G.22-04/04/174, dt.15.7.2004 attachingthe house of the petitioner is highly arbitrary and illegal.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDYCounsel for the Respondent No.: MR.Ch.Laxmikanth.

The Court at the stage of admission made the following :

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

WRIT PETITION NO.25232 OF 2004

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage ofadmission.

The petitioner claims to be a cottage industry used to engage 5 to 10 labourers, asand when required and not covered by the provisions of the Employees ProvidentFund Act. It is also stated that without issuing any notice, the respondents haveinitiated proceedings against the petitioner and determined an amount ofRs.2,46,412-60 Ps towards provident fund dues for the period of 1/2001 to 12/2002and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount within 7 days. Thereafter, ademand notice dated 8-3-2004 was issued demanding the petitioner to pay the dueamount. Since, due amount was not paid an order dated 15-7-2004 was issued ordering attachment of the immovable property. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

Though, several contentions were raised, learned counsel for petitioner submittedthat no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner as per section 7 (A) (3) of the Act,and it intends to file a review application before the first respondent.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner maybe permitted to file the review application subject to payment of half of thedemanded amount.

In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitiongranting liberty to the petitioner to file a review application before the first respondentwithin a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject topayment of half of the demanded amount, within a period of four weeks time fromtoday. Till such time, respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

31.12.2004.

mdaa/tvk

Copy to:

1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Laxmipuram Guntur.

2. The Recovery Officer and Regional P.F.Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund,Sub-Regional Officer, Guntur.

3. Two C.D.copies.

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead