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 0]

Gujarat High Court

Director vs Regional on 29 July, 2010

Author: Ks Jhaveri

Bench: Ks Jhaveri

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/5226/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5226 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================


 

DIRECTOR
THROUGH SAJJAD A MERCHANT, DIRECTOR - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
YOGI K GADHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR NIRAL R MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/07/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd September 2001 passed under section 7-A by APFC, Ahmedabad and also the Recovery Notice dated 5th November 2004 and orders dated 28th May 2007 and 9th February 2010 passed by EPFAT, Delhi in Appeal and Review Application respectively.

2. Mr. Niral Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has produced a communication dated 10th June 2010 issued by Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization wherein it is stated as under:

"Looking to the records available in Account Section it reveals that Establishment had started to remit the dues of respective month even before the allotment of P.F. code no. Establishment has also submitted Form 3A and Form 6A from 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and according tot he returns total dues in respect of all accounts is Rs.3,41,724/-. There is no short payment as per reconciliation statement available in Account Section. The same amount has not been considered while passing order u/s 7A as the order was passed ex-parte due to non appearance from the establishment."

3. The said communication is taken on record. In view of the aforesaid communication the prayer made in this petition is required to be granted. Accordingly the petition is allowed by quashing the orders impugned in the present petition. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] AR     Top