Bombay High Court
Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 26 November, 2019
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 WP 5855-2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5855 OF 2016
(Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur, Thr. Its Director Prashant Lakhani
Vs.
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund
Organization, Nagpur )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri A.J. Pathak, Advocate for the Petitioner
Shri H.N. Verma, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : 26th November, 2019.
By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the said Act).
2. There can be no dispute about the fact that alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the said Act was available to the petitioner, which was not availed of by the petitioner.
3. This Court in judgment and order dated 03.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 2190/2016 (M/s Balaji Ginning Factory Vs. Assistant Provident ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 01:41:08 ::: 2 WP 5855-2016.odt Fund Commissioner) has held that once a petitioner fails to file an appeal within the period of limitation under Section 7-I of the said Act, it cannot maintain a writ petition before this Court only on the ground the period of limitation has expired and the remedy of appeal would not be available.
4. In view of the above it becomes clear the writ petition cannot be entertain by this Court and accordingly it is dismissed.
5. But, in so far as challenge to show cause notice dated 09.09.2016 regarding issuance of warrant of arrest is concerned, this petition could be entertained. But, the said impugned communication is only a show cause notice and it still is not warrant of arrest issued against the directors of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is granted liberty to respond to the said show cause notice to place on record subsequent events, including attachment of properties of the petitioner. The respondent shall take into consideration such reply that may be filed by the petitioner, and thereafter take further steps for recovery of dues strictly in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with above observation.
JUDGE SD. Bhimte ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 01:41:08 :::