Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S CHITRA versus R.P.F.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Chitra v. R.P.F.C. - WRIT - C No. 9767 of 1988 [2006] RD-AH 9214 (9 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 9767 OF 1988

M/s. Chitra Taalkis, Jhansi                         ....Petitioner

Versus

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

Kanpur.                                                       ...Respondents

--------------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the authority under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952  dated 29.4.88 by which damages and penalty have been imposed on the petitioner for making delayed payments of the Provident Fund amount for the period May, 1969 to September, 1986.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and I have also perused the record.

The order of the authority does not suffer from any illegality.  There is time limit prescribed under the provisions of Section 14 B of the Act and the authority concerned sent a show cause notice to the petitioner for late payment.  The petitioner has also appeared before the authority concerned but did not raise any specific plea with regard to the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of sending the notice after a period of 17 years.

Learned counsel for the respondent Shri Dhananjay Awasthy has argued that against an order passed under Section 14-B, it was open to the petitioner to take recourse

:2:

to the statutory remedy under Section 7(i) of the Act, but that remedy was not available to the petitioner when this petition was filed.  The provisions of Section 7(i) has been imposed from the year 1988.  The petitioner is now raising a plea that under the notification, which is applicable under the Act, the maximum penalty which could have been imposed  was 25%.

I permit the petitioner to move a representation to the respondent within a period of ten days from today before the authority concerned, who will consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass orders on it within a period of three months.  The amount already deposited under interim orders of this Court will remain in deposit until the case is decided.

The writ petition is disposed of.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 9.5.06

L.F./9767/88/33

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 9767 OF 1988

M/s. Chitra Taalkis, Jhansi                         ....Petitioner

Versus

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

Kanpur.                                                       ...Respondents

--------------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the authority under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952  dated 29.4.88 by which damages and penalty have been imposed on the petitioner for making delayed payments of the Provident Fund amount for the period May, 1969 to September, 1986.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and I have also perused the record.

The order of the authority does not suffer from any illegality.  There is time limit prescribed under the provisions of Section 14 B of the Act and the authority concerned sent a show cause notice to the petitioner for late payment.  The petitioner has also appeared before the authority concerned but did not raise any specific plea with regard to the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of sending the notice after a period of 17 years.

Learned counsel for the respondent Shri Dhananjay Awasthy has argued that against an order passed under Section 14-B, it was open to the petitioner to take recourse

:2:

to the statutory remedy under Section 7(i) of the Act, but that remedy was not available to the petitioner when this petition was filed.  The provisions of Section 7(i) has been imposed from the year 1988.  The petitioner is now raising a plea that under the notification, which is applicable under the Act, the maximum penalty which could have been imposed  was 25%.

I permit the petitioner to move a representation to the respondent within a period of ten days from today before the authority concerned, who will consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass orders on it within a period of three months.  The amount already deposited under interim orders of this Court will remain in deposit until the case is decided.

The writ petition is disposed of.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 9.5.06

L.F./9767/88/33

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 9767 OF 1988

M/s. Chitra Taalkis, Jhansi                         ....Petitioner

Versus

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

Kanpur.                                                       ...Respondents

--------------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the authority under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952  dated 29.4.88 by which damages and penalty have been imposed on the petitioner for making delayed payments of the Provident Fund amount for the period May, 1969 to September, 1986.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and I have also perused the record.

The order of the authority does not suffer from any illegality.  There is time limit prescribed under the provisions of Section 14 B of the Act and the authority concerned sent a show cause notice to the petitioner for late payment.  The petitioner has also appeared before the authority concerned but did not raise any specific plea with regard to the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of sending the notice after a period of 17 years.

Learned counsel for the respondent Shri Dhananjay Awasthy has argued that against an order passed under Section 14-B, it was open to the petitioner to take recourse

:2:

to the statutory remedy under Section 7(i) of the Act, but that remedy was not available to the petitioner when this petition was filed.  The provisions of Section 7(i) has been imposed from the year 1988.  The petitioner is now raising a plea that under the notification, which is applicable under the Act, the maximum penalty which could have been imposed  was 25%.

I permit the petitioner to move a representation to the respondent within a period of ten days from today before the authority concerned, who will consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass orders on it within a period of three months.  The amount already deposited under interim orders of this Court will remain in deposit until the case is decided.

The writ petition is disposed of.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 9.5.06

L.F./9767/88/33

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 9767 OF 1988

M/s. Chitra Taalkis, Jhansi                         ....Petitioner

Versus

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

Kanpur.                                                       ...Respondents

--------------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the authority under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952  dated 29.4.88 by which damages and penalty have been imposed on the petitioner for making delayed payments of the Provident Fund amount for the period May, 1969 to September, 1986.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and I have also perused the record.

The order of the authority does not suffer from any illegality.  There is time limit prescribed under the provisions of Section 14 B of the Act and the authority concerned sent a show cause notice to the petitioner for late payment.  The petitioner has also appeared before the authority concerned but did not raise any specific plea with regard to the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of sending the notice after a period of 17 years.

Learned counsel for the respondent Shri Dhananjay Awasthy has argued that against an order passed under Section 14-B, it was open to the petitioner to take recourse

:2:

to the statutory remedy under Section 7(i) of the Act, but that remedy was not available to the petitioner when this petition was filed.  The provisions of Section 7(i) has been imposed from the year 1988.  The petitioner is now raising a plea that under the notification, which is applicable under the Act, the maximum penalty which could have been imposed  was 25%.

I permit the petitioner to move a representation to the respondent within a period of ten days from today before the authority concerned, who will consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass orders on it within a period of three months.  The amount already deposited under interim orders of this Court will remain in deposit until the case is decided.

The writ petition is disposed of.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 9.5.06

L.F./9767/88/33


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.