Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner Of Employees ... on 7 September, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Madras High Court

Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner Of Employees ... on 7 September, 2011

Bench: Vinod K.Sharma

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 07/09/2011

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

W.P.(MD)No.10336 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010

Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd.,
Represented through its
Factory Manager,
S.R.Lakshmi Narayanan                ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner of Employees Provident fund,
  Employees Provident Fund Organization,
  Regional Office,
  Lady Doak College Road,
  Chokkikulam,
  Madurai-625 002.

2.The Recovery Officer,
  Employees Provident Fund Organization,
  Regional Office,
  Lady Doak College Road,
  Chokkikulam,
  Madurai-625 002.                   ... Respondents

PRAYER

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of  Certiorari,  to call for the order passed by
the 2nd respondent in No.M2/TN/MD/2298/Recy/RO/2010, dated 26.07.2010 and quash
the order in respect of imposing costs and charges of Rs.4,43,757/- .

!For Petitioner	    ... Mr.R.Sivamanogran
^For Respondents    ... Mr.V.S.V.Venkateshwaran

:ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by imposition of costs and changes of Rs.4,43,757/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three thousand Seven hundred and Fifty seven only], while ordering proclamation of sale, to recover a sum of Rs.8,85,569/- [Rupees Eight Lakhs Eight Five thousand Five hundred and Sixty Nine only] from the petitioner, under recovery certificate.

2.It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 8,85,569/- [Rupees Eight Lakhs Eighty Five thousand Five hundred and Sixty nine only], in instalments and sale was not effected.

3.The petitioner is only aggrieved by the order of costs and charges of Rs.4,43,757/- [Rupees Four Lakhs Forty three thousand Seven hundred and Fifty seven only] claimed in the proclamation of sale.

4.The reading of the proclamation of sale, prima facie shows that the recovery certificate against the petitioner was for a sum of Rs.8,85,569/- [Rupees Eight lakhs Eighty five thousand Five hundred and Sixty Nine only]. In absence of any adjudicatory order, imposing costs and charges on the party, it is not open to the recovery officer, to claim unreasonable costs and charges, in the proclamation of sale.

5.The impugned order of proclamation of sale qua, imposing of costs and charges, is prima facie, arbitrary and amounts to colourable exercise of power, which cannot be sustained in law, in view of the judgment of this court in W.P.(MD)No.1591 of 2005 [Viswabharathi Textiles (P) Limited vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others] decided on 01.10.2007.

6.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. While upholding the right of the respondent to recover the amount determined under the recovery certificate, the impugned part of order, imposing costs and charges by the Recovery officer is set aside.

7.Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court