Gauhati High Court
Rep. By Its Constituted Attorney Mr. ... vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 4 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010157102023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4066/2023
PALLORBUND TEA LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3B,
LALBAZAR STREET, KOLKATA-700001
REP. BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. CHANDRA PRAKASH
AGARWAL ,
S/O- LATE RAMAUTAR AGARWAL, RESIDING AT 75/62, S.N ROY ROAD,
KOLKATA-700038
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE SECRETARY CUM PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
SILCHAR ZONAL OFFICE CACHAR PIN-788001 ASSAM
3:THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
SILCHAR ZONAL OFFICE CACHAR PIN-788001 ASSAM
4:THE RECOVERY OFFICER
ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
SILCHAR ZONAL OFFICE CACHAR
PIN-788001 ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, MS S KAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. N C DAS (R-2,3,4),MR. K KAKATI (R-
2,3,4),MS. M DEVI (R-2,3,4),MR. A DAS (R-2,3,4)
Page No.# 2/7
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2118/2025
THE SECRETARY CUM PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SILCHAR
ZONAL OFFICE CACHAR PIN-788001 ASSAM
2: THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SILCHAR
ZONAL OFFICE CACHAR PIN-788001 ASSAM
3: THE RECOVERY OFFICER
ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SILCHAR
ZONAL OFFICE CACHAR PIN-788001 ASSAM
VERSUS
PALLORBUND TEA LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3B
LALBAZAR STREET
KOLKATA700001 REP. BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. CHANDRA
PRAKASH AGARWAL S/O- LATE RAMAUTAR AGARWAL
RESIDING AT 75/62 S.N ROY ROAD KOLKATA-700038.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06
------------
Advocate for : MS. K M TALUKDAR
Advocate for : MR J KALITA appearing for PALLORBUND TEA LTD
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 04.08.2025 Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3 & 4.
2. This Court, vide order, dated 16-08-2023, had directed the petitioner Company to deposit a further amount of Rs. 30 lakhs with the respondent No. 2 Organization. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, had submitted that the said amount has been deposited by the petitioner Company Page No.# 3/7 with the respondent No. 2 Organization. The respondent No. 2 Organization being aggrieved by the interim protection granted by this Court vide order, dated 28- 07-2023, as well as by the subsequent orders, has instituted an interlocutory application being IA(c)2118/2025, praying for vacation of the same.
3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Organization, has submitted that the dues receivable from the petitioner Company towards the Provident Fund contribution and other statutory contributions of both the employees and the employer, as on the date of filing of the said interlocutory application, has been computed to be around Rs. 8,28,54,005.73.
4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, has further contended that in the present proceeding; the petitioner Company, in paragraph No. 12, has submitted an undertaking to the effect that on receipt of the compensation for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner Company; the entire amount of compensation so received, would be paid to the respondent No. 2 Organization, at one go. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Organization, has also submitted that the petitioner Company was initially released an amount of Rs. 5,43,88,432/- and thereafter, a further amount of Rs. 2,17,12,103/-, as compensation was released, for the land acquired from it. The total amount disbursed to the petitioner Company, as compensation, works-out to Rs. 7,61,00,535/-.
5. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, has further submitted that although the said amounts were received by the petitioner Company, however, no payment, therefrom, came to be made to the respondent No. 2 Organization, in terms of the undertaking as made by the petitioner Company in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the learned counsel has submitted that the interim protection, would require to be re-considered by this Court.
Page No.# 4/7
6. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner Company, in response to the submissions made by Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Organization, has submitted that the demand notice under challenge in the present proceeding, having only made a demand of Rs. 3,39,14,190.62 from the petitioner Company; the petitioner Company, herein, would be required to only pay the said amount and not any further amount.
7. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, on the other hand; has clarified that the computation of amount in the demand notice, dated 14-07-2023, is the computation so made as on the date, the said notice was so issued. The learned counsel has further submitted that thereafter, adding to the said amount as mentioned in the said demand notice; the interest component as well as the further Provident Fund contributions becoming due, thereafter, the amount receivable by the respondent No. 2 Organization from the petitioner Company works-out to Rs. 8,28,54,005.73.
8. On a consideration of the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials brought on record; this Court notices that the petitioner Company, herein, being aggrieved by the partial disbursement of the land compensation receivable by it, has approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)2439/2025 and the said writ petition is pending disposal as on date.
9. On a perusal of the order, dated 09-05-2025, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said writ petition, it is seen that therein, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, herein, is recorded. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner being relevant for the purpose of the consideration made by this order; it is extracted hereinbelow:
Page No.# 5/7 "Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of preferring the writ petition, the petitioner was disbursed a sum of Rs. 5,43,88,432/-. Mr. Kalita has submitted that he has received instruction in the meantime that another sum of Rs. 2,17,12,103/- has been disbursed to the petitioner, meaning thereby, a sum of Rs. 2,07,52,429/- has remained to be disbursed out of the amount assessed under Section 3G of the N.H. Act till date."
10. A perusal of the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Company, herein, would go to reveal that the petitioner Company has already received an amount of Rs. 7,61,00,535/-, as compensation, for the land acquired from it.
11. The petitioner Company, in the present proceeding, in paragraph No. 12, had made the following contention:
"12..............Further the petitioner has given undertaking that the Airforce authority has acquired 150 Acre of land of their company and they will get a handsome amount as value of their land and immediately after getting the money the petitioner will pay the entire amount at one go but the respondent authorities has not at all considered the reality of the petitioner's company and have been issuing one after another order mechanically and finally issued the impugned letter dated 14/7/2023 to sale the immovable property of the petitioner whimsically. ................"
12. Further, the said contention was reiterated in paragraph No. 13, as under:
"13................That the petitioner has clearly undertaken that they will pay entire amount at one go immediately after receiving the value of their land acquired by the Airforce but the respondent authorities are quite adamant and has issued the impugned notice dated 14/7/2023 and therefore the same is liable to be set aside and quashed."
13. A perusal of the said contentions made by the petitioner Company, in paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 of the present writ petition; would go to reveal that the petitioner Company had undertaken to clear dues of the respondent No. 2 Organization, on being remitted the compensation against the acquisition of its land.
14. The compensation amount, in question, having been released to the respondent No. 2 Organization, as can be culled-out from the order, dated 09-05- Page No.# 6/7 2025, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(c)2439/2025; the petitioner Company ought to have fulfilled the said undertaking made, on oath, in the present proceeding. The petitioner Company, has, however, failed to fulfill the said undertaking.
15. In view of the above position, this Court noticing the undertaking made by the petitioner in the present proceeding and also noticing the fact that the petitioner Company has already been remitted an amount of Rs. 7,61,00,535/-, as compensation, for the land acquired from it; directs the petitioner Company to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores) only, with the respondent No. 2 Organization, on or before 5th of September, 2025.
16. The amount so directed to be deposited by the petitioner Company with the respondent No. 2 Organization, would be further considered in the present writ petition, on the next dates of listing.
17. It is further provided that subject to the payment of the said amount of Rs.
5,00,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores) only, on or before 5 th of September, 2025; the respondent No. 2 Organization shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner Company, herein.
18. However, in the event, as of 5th of September, 2025, the petitioner Company fails to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores) only, with the respondent No. 2 Organization; this Court provides that the interim protection granted to the petitioner Company vide the present order, shall stand lapsed and the respondent No. 2 Organization, shall be at liberty to institute steps for recovery of its dues as may be permissible under the law without any further reference to this Court.
Page No.# 7/7
19. List the instant writ petition along with the interlocutory application being IA(c)2118/2025, again on 15th of September, 2025.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant