The Mangalore Catholic Co-Operative vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 3 October, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Mangalore Catholic Co-Operative vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 3 October, 2008

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

 U?" §(AEﬁM%"¥'A%A @"%3£%%*-1 QOURYGF KARVV-iﬁ'¥'AE(A H!G§~E COUR? Q?" Kﬁnﬂwﬁfﬁﬂﬁ HQGH CGURW

"« 'non~'ouwu¢'a5.w  i\l"'M\I1l"iiaF'Q.¥\J"Q r€ﬂo.?f1 

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE W.§'.4'? 12 OF 2006
1

IN THE HIGH coum' <31? KAENATAKA, BANGA.LORE:..__
DATED THIS THE 3% DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008  1

BEFORE

THE 1~ioN*BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM'MQ4HA;EiVHR_V'E:}'§}.§XE'   A

WRY1' PETITION N<i::.4712 o1;«*'%20iii6%A {L~7P£?3%%%%  ,  

BETWEEN

THE MANGALORE cATHoL.I<:.'co-_:'QP£:1:AT;V:a:

BANK LIMITED, A BODY RE':-iAS*rE--§2E:--D:. U1;3§E,R» _

THE KARNATAKA CO--OPERA'Fl'VEi SOCIE-1'.£E53i_'A_CT, 1959,
ADMI§\IESTRA'I'IVEI- OW-':63    '-  1 .V 
AT ST ALOYSIUS (3G'L.LVEGE=:'RQA-13,3
HAMPANAKATTA, 7MA1='§I'GALQRE~_1 _ 
REP BY GENREAL ;\;:AA'N'c.;ERV.T'1'.--   V'

 PE'I'iTiONER

(By 8373'. ; P33 RAJA€}Q..95*L., Azjiw-'.i.___ .} I
AND: ' 4 V H .

  _ 'I'H.§.; EEEGEVQNAL PR{}VIDEN'I' Puma
 , 'C_OMMIvS€~£{'1NER-I
 v"3Mr%L'oyE..E'3f PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
" ._R'E_G1GI*€A.;I,_ s::~;'::"1é"1c::E, HIGHLANDS,
:~:;1.JVA R(JA.g:>; MANGALORE -22

., M/s~~HC::'rEL SHREE RAMA RESIDENCY

 A UNI'I"'OF' SHE"??? HGTELS PVT ma

 .0913. HEAD mgr OFFICE, UDUP£
';_REP' BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

/;x.j: A

 RESPONDENTS

V {By Sr: : P 3 DINESH KUMAR, ADV FOR R1 ) THIS WRIT PETITION ES FELED UNDER ARTKELES 226 2%.,ND 22? OF THE {ZONSTETUTIQN 0? INDIA PRAYING TO M IN "§'I~§E HEGH COURT' OF' KARNAEEKA, ESANGEXI/ORE: WP. 4171? O? 2096' IN T}~IE HEGH COURT OF' E€AR?1IA'l'AKA, BANGALORE W.P.'-47} 33 OF 2006 4 jurisdiction under Section 8--F(3)(i) of the Act, by order dated 28-()2--~20()6 A1'1I1€X{1I'€--"{}".

4. In almost identical circuinstaxlces, a i"

Bench of this Court in the case Qf...7i'.If1E VIJAYA BANK, PAZDUBIDRI vs. PROVIDENT FUND coMna1s?s1:}1s1Ea; AND 0111151231, interpreted sec;:i1o:k:z'%'M%a--:«*.{_3) clause. (1) of the Act thus: '' Z V V % "'1'11erefoz'£:;', in ;§:x§§risio:1s sf C1ause__{i) §;.~:~z4411::1:§j:L;<§;gaj;ctio'j.;~1__(:1)_of._Sc-;:ti§x§'5;? and to sustain 1 of the COII1X:"£V1i§§1'€31'i.f::,'7(', ha &€é§1ié£1'V:o]is11ed on the dam " received the iI11pug1'1éd 'not12'ci::-- ghe Commissioner, it hoid the §'on[e:y.£o an éééctgnt of Rs.30,217.75/-

-" '~ ,K'£V.1'1€*.._r::1:t1plV¥ﬁi3;?:':r.--'«' "

'--i'f1V~é'..'*I1'1 case, Rs.30,260/-- was halt} in the C13.;i'1'('i'I1*é aéconnt of the 2119? respondent maintained in uwumavmmmawm Hﬁlwﬂ Mwwna hall' H\H\ﬁ«'.E'°ﬂNH£ﬁ'M\ﬂ WQWM pégﬁiiipnér ---- Branch over which the petitioner had a wwu wvwwmxn vyuurze $-

\C./ . 11,12. 2003 KAR 3331 IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BAﬁGA§.ORE'- WP. 47 E? OF 2006.

-:un'|I'-aw' "" ' quashed, » V-r-u-vmwmv 543' nmmvczmmnn ncwrl QUUKI we KAKNA§ﬁ%% HIGH CQEJRT (3? KAQNATAKA HIGH COURT 0?' Kﬂ;RNM?A§€ﬁ MEG" (SOUR? EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARIEATAKA, BANGALORE 'W. P. 4712 O?' 2606 5 charge and iien under the Hypotheeation Deed dated 28»O6»2002 and the Bank having exercised its rigljf,"--.T recovered the said sum in terms of the said "

petitionerw Bank recovered the sum which 3 iegitimately do so in terms of the under the contract as against: the of 'Que; dd respondent ~-- employer. In othei*».:e,?'o;fds;" d'tV1:1e.ﬂdate when the let respondent vdeeetion 8-F (3)(i) of the Aet,1f.here hands of the petitioner --_ VV*::o":t11e employer and therefogfe; by the order impugned {dated '.vvA1mexuIe--"G" by the 1st respondent, petitéen eﬁoixfed. The proceedings feliowed by omgde ' 'dated 28----O2--2(}(}6 AnI1eXu;:e«~"G" are Sd/---

Iudge IN '}T'}fE HIGH COURT OF KARZ\I£TAK& BANGALORE WI'. -47 12 OF' 2005.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court