Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. KANCHANA versus THE RECOVERY OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT. KANCHANA v. THE RECOVERY OFFICER - WP(C) No. 28225 of 2006(I) [2006] RD-KL 1450 (27 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 28225 of 2006(I)

1. SMT. KANCHANA, W/O.BALACHANDRAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SMT.SHAIMA .U.

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :27/10/2006

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

W.P (C) NO. 28225 OF 2006

Dated this the 27th day of October, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees Provident Fund Organization. The petitioner claims to be a partner of M/s. New Star Weaving Works, but she being a silent partner was not aware of the happenings in the establishment as she was away. Now some of her well-wishers brought to her notice that there has been a notice published in the news paper putting her family property to public auction for realization of dues under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Ext.P1 is the said notification. The petitioner is challenging the said notification.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization submits that the Managing Partner of WP(C) No. 28225/2006 (2) the firm, of which the petitioner is also a partner, was heard before final orders have been passed and he had challenged the orders in this court unsuccessfully. Further he points out that in this writ petition, the petitioner does not challenge the basic order pursuant to which Ext.P1 sale notice has been issued. Therefore, according to him, this writ petition is not maintainable.

3. After having heard both sides, I am satisfied that without challenging the orders, pursuant to which Ext.P1 sale notice has been issued, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge Ext.P1 notice for sale by auction of the property in question for realising Provident Fund arrears as per those orders. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

(S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)

jg


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.