Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Rudra Estate Pvt Ltd vs Ravish Gupta on 1 April, 2019
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MA NO.2905/2018 (IA No.160993/2018) IN
CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 214/2016 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7122/2003
M/S RUDRA ESTATE PVT LTD & ANR. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
RAVISH GUPTA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The present application has been instituted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner1, Employees’ Provident Funds Organization in Contempt Petition (C) No 214/2016 in Civil Appeal No 7122/2003. This Court, by its judgment dated 30 June 2014, set aside an auction conducted by the State of Uttar Pradesh of certain lands owned by Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited and ordered refund of the amount which had been paid by the auction purchaser – Rudra Estate Private Limited. This Court also issued the following directions in its above judgment:
“The matter is remitted to the District Collector, Meerut to determine the liability of the Company upto the date of vesting i.e. 28th October, 1984 after notice to the parties. The authority while so determining shall take into consideration the liability of the Company as on Signature Not Verified 28th October, 1984, including labour charges, Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.04.03 Sales Tax, loan amount given by the State 15:35:08 IST Reason: Government etc. if payable. After determination of liabilities and adjustment of the dues which is payable by the Company, if any amount is found 1 “RPFC” 2 payable to the Company, the appellant shall pay the amount within four months from the date of determination. On the other hand, if any amount is found payable by the Company, the Competent authority may recover the amount, in accordance with law.” A contempt proceeding, being Contempt Petition (C) No 214/2016, was instituted by the auction purchaser for refund of the moneys in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 30 June 2014. The RPFC was also arrayed as a contemnor. A sum of Rs 49,90,432 had been collected by the EPF authorities towards the dues of Jaswant Sugar Mills, arising under Sections 7A, 14B and 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The RPFC appeared in the proceedings before this Court and filed a counter affidavit stating that the EPF dues had been withdrawn by the beneficiaries.
On 6 April 2018, this Court directed that if the entire amount minus the statutory deposits is not paid over to M/s Rudra Estate Private Limited within four weeks, the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Labour, Government of Uttar Pradesh would remain present before this Court.
On 17 May 2018, the following order was passed:
“Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh submits that sanction has been obtained for the payment of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees eighty five lacs) and the actual payment can be effected within a week from today.
We direct the State to effect the payment within a week from today otherwise the officers will be 3 personally liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. However, we make it clear that it will be open for the State to take steps for recovery from the concerned establishments.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, personal appearance of the officers is dispensed with.
Post on 16th July, 2018.” Thereafter, on 16 July 2018, the following order was passed in the contempt proceedings:
“1. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh submits that the recovery proceedings are in progress.
2. It is noted that it has been almost 17 years now, since the amounts became due and no effective steps have been taken to complete the recovery proceedings.
3. The State of Uttar Pradesh is granted a period of six months from today to complete the recovery proceedings.
4. We make it clear that irrespective of whether the amounts are recovered or not, the entire liability shall be cleared, within four weeks thereafter.
5. We further make it clear that in case the amount is not paid within the time granted, as above, it will carry interest @ 12% per annum and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same.
6. The contempt petitions are disposed of, as above.” A time span of six months was granted to the State of Uttar Pradesh to complete the recovery proceedings. At a meeting convened on 16 July 2018, the District Magistrate, Meerut issued a direction to the Regional 4 Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, Meerut to ensure refund of an amount of Rs 49,90,432, together with interest at 6% per annum for the period from 27 April 2001 to 27 July 2018 within two days. On 29 October 2018, a notice was issued by the office of the District Magistrate to the RPFC to ensure that the amount is deposited in the office of Tehsildar, Meerut within one week from the date of receipt of the notice. That has given rise to the present application. The following relief has been sought:
“a. Direct State of Uttar Pradesh to exclude the sum collected by the applicant under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, from recovery proceedings commenced under the orders of this Hon’ble Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) 214 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No.7122 of 2003.” In our view, the direction which has been issued by the District Magistrate to the RPFC is manifestly misconceived. In pursuance of the recovery certificate which was issued by the RPFC, an amount of Rs 49.90 lakhs was paid over in realization of the recovery certificate. The EPF dues rank in priority in terms of Section 11 of the Act. The auction sale, having been set aside, this Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to refund an amount of Rs 85 lakhs to the auction purchaser, together with interest. This, however, can furnish no justification for directing the RPFC to pay over the amount of Rs 49,90,432, which had already been disbursed 5 by the Employees’ Provident Fund Commissioner to the eligible beneficiaries. The State is entitled, in terms of the order passed by this Court initially on 17 May 2018 and subsequently on 16 July 2018, to pursue the recovery proceedings against the available assets. The State would be at liberty to do so. However, the sum which has been collected by the applicant under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 will necessarily stand excluded. We accordingly set aside the direction which has been issued by the District Magistrate, Meerut to the applicant for refund of the amount. However, we leave it open to the State of Uttar Pradesh to take necessary steps for completing the exercise of re-determination of State dues in terms of the judgment and order of this Court dated 30 June 2014. This exercise shall be completed, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of this order and it would be open to the State to take necessary steps in accordance with law for realisation.
Application stands disposed of.
.............................J. (DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD) .............................J. (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI APRIL 01, 2019 6 ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.11 SECTION III-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MA No.2905/2018 (IA No.160993/2018) in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 214/2016 in Civil Appeal No.7122/2003 M/S RUDRA ESTATE PVT LTD & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAVISH GUPTA & ORS. Respondent(s) (APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS (IA No.160993/2018) FILED BY MR. SIDDHARTH, ADVOCATE FOR ALLEGED CONTEMNOR NO. 5 IN C.P. (C) NO. 214 OF 2016) Date : 01-04-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Adv. Gen. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv.
Vaidruti Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Siddharth, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Agrawal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SUNIL KUMAR RAJVANSHI)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)