Delhi High Court - Orders
Vishakha Facility Management P Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 3 September, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:03.09.2021
21:41:37
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5630/2020
VISHAKHA FACILITY MANAGEMENT P LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Ashish Dogra
and Mr. Ashish Gautam Shalinder,
Advocates. (M:9911339930)
versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for
RPFC.
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel
for IHBAS with Ms. Ankita
Bhadouriya, Mr. Subham Jain and
Mr. Subhash Chandra.
(M:9911991166)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 03.09.2021 CM APPL. 29630/2021
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. This is an application moved by the Petitioner seeking directions for withdrawal of the letter of attachment of Rs.9,72,71,063/- issued by the Respondent/Employees' Provident Fund Organization/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter, 'RPFC') to all the clients and banks of the Petitioner.
3. The copies of the letters attached with the present application which show that vide letters dated 9th August, 2021 and 12th August, 2021, the Petitioner has written to the RPFC seeking withdrawal of the letters of W.P.(C) 5630/2020 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:03.09.2021 21:41:37 recovery issued by the RPFC, copies of which are not available with it.
4. The background of this case, as is clear from order dated 4th August, 2021, is that the present writ petition was filed challenging the order by which pre-deposit was directed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter, "CGIT"). Initially, on 26th August, 2020, a conditional interim stay was granted in favour of the Petitioner. However, the same was vacated vide order dated 12th July, 2021 in view of the fact that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- which was to be deposited had not been deposited. Thereafter, an application was moved by the Petitioner seeking recall of order dated 12th July, 2021. On 4th August, 2021, order dated 12th July, 2021 was recalled and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, further time till 15th August, 2021 was granted for depositing the sum of Rs.50,00,000/-.
5. Strangely, it appears that the RPFC, upon vacation of the order dated 12th July, 2021, has written several letters to the Petitioner's clients and to the banks of the Petitioner, directing freezing of the banks accounts and asking the clients not to make payments to the Petitioner.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that copies of the said letters are not being made available to the Petitioner, despite repeated requests. In view of these letters the bank accounts of the Petitioner were frozen and clients of the Petitioner expressed inability to make remittances to the Petitioner in view of the receipt of such letters from the RPFC. Thus, the Petitioner was unable to receive payments and outstanding amounts from its clients and is unable to even make payments of salaries to its employees and discharge its responsibility of depositing the sum of Rs 50,00,000/- with the CGIT, as directed by the Court. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the W.P.(C) 5630/2020 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:03.09.2021 21:41:37 Petitioner repeatedly wrote letters to the Department and to the RPFC for copies of the recovery letters, however, despite the same, the recovery letters/orders by which the bank accounts of the Petitioner were frozen by the RPFC have not been made available to the Petitioner.
7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, ld. Counsel for RPFC, has today placed on record four emails by which it is claimed that vide emails dated 11th August, 2021 to the banks, the earlier recovery notice of demand dated 22nd July, 2021 is kept in abeyance. One of the emails illustratively reads as under:
"Reference to CP-5 notice of demand
No.RO/DELHI(EAST)RECOVERY/938586/2541 dated
22/07/2021, it is informed that the Hon'ble court has granted time to the Establishment of depositing Pre-deposit amount till 15/08/2021.
Therefore it is directed to keep the said notice in abeyance till further directions of CGIT."
8. A perusal of the above email shows that it is extremely ambiguous, vague and is not clear as to whether the bank accounts have been de-frozen or not. Even otherwise, the Department has to satisfy the Court as to how and in what manner such extreme steps were taken of writing letters to the clients and banks of the Petitioner, asking them to freeze the accounts. The entire business of the Petitioner is stated to have come to a standstill. The present application is being considered in this background.
9. Mr. Tushar Sannu, ld. Counsel for IHBAS, submits that the RPFC even went to the extent of automatically debiting a sum of approximately Rs.9 crores from IHBAS's account. Upon contacting the RPFC, the same was recredited to IHBAS's account. Let these facts, along with the relevant documents, be brought on record by means of an affidavit.
W.P.(C) 5630/2020 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:03.09.2021 21:41:3710. From the submissions made and after perusing the record, it is clear that the copies of the letters written by the RPFC to the clients of the Petitioner and the banks where the accounts are operated, are not being made available. While the RPFC has chosen to place on record the emails dated 11th August 2021, the earlier letters dated 22nd July 2021, which the present emails sought to withdraw, are not placed on record. As per ld counsel for the Petitioner, its clients are not passing on the copy of the letters received by them from the RPFC owing to various reasons.
11. Considering the nature of this matter, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II is directed to appear on the next date. Ld. Counsel for RPFC shall placed on record all the letters written by the Department to the clients and banks of the Petitioner, by which the bank accounts of the Petitioner have been frozen and the clients have been directed not to make payments.
12. In view of the fact that as of today the entire business of the Petitioner is stated to have come to a standstill due to the freezing of its bank accounts, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- could not be deposited. Accordingly, it is directed that any notices issued by the RPFC freezing the bank accounts of the Petitioner stand suspended with immediate effect. All the banks shall ensure that the Petitioner is able to conduct its usual business activities using the bank accounts. Any letters issued to the clients of the Petitioner also stand suspended with immediate effect. The payments made by the clients to the Petitioner shall be credited immediately to the Petitioner's bank accounts. The time period for the Petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- with the CGIT is extended till 8th September 2021. Alternatively, the Petitioner shall bring a demand W.P.(C) 5630/2020 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:03.09.2021 21:41:37 draft for Rs. 50 lakhs, on the next date of hearing.
13. List on 9th September, 2021. The parties are permitted to file additional documents, along with an index, and bring the same on record on or before 6th September, 2021. In addition, they would email the same to the Court Master.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 dj/T/MS W.P.(C) 5630/2020 Page 5 of 5