Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

M/S Madan Parnami Sales Corp vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 August, 2011

Author: Ajay Rastogi

Bench: Ajay Rastogi

    

 
 
 

 	                In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 
				                 Jaipur Bench 
					                  **
                 Civil Writ Petition No.3020/2010
                   M/s Madan Parnami Sales Corporation 
                  Versus  Union of India & Ors 
			        
		                Date of Order     :::        12/08/2011

		                   Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
 
Mr. Sunil Kr. Singh, for petitioner		

Instant petition has been filed against order dt.29/07/2009 (Ann.1) passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Damages) in exercise of powers U/s 14-B of Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and so also execution proceedings initiated against petitioner Corporation.

Main thrust of the Counsel is that the order reflects that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and despite notice being served, no one appeared on their behalf and accordingly the authority has proceeded while passing the order impugned. Counsel submits that the fact is that notice was never served at any stage and the petitioner was not aware of proceedings being initiated against the petitioner for payment of contributions mentioned in the order impugned alongwith interest & damages and action of respondents-PF Commissioner pursuant to order dt. 29/07/2009 is in violation of principles of natural justice.

The order dt.29/07/2009 discloses about show cause notice being issued and served upon petitioner vide letters dt. 05/01/2009 & notice dt.13/02/2009 but no one appeared on their behalf.

However, since this fact has been disputed by Counsel, this Court considers it appropriate that if notices have not been served, as alleged, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application before the Commissioner who has passed the order impugned dt.29/07/2009; and if such an application is filed, it is expected from the authority to consider and decide in accordance with law. However, this Court finds no justification to entertain this petition.

Consequently, writ petition stands disposed of.

(Ajay Rastogi), J.

K.Khatri/p2/ 3020CW2010Aug12Dsp.do