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 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Parle Agro Private Limited A Company ... vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 26 April, 2024

                                                      1
                           IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
                                            ON THE 26 th OF APRIL, 2024
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 4081 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY
                          INCORPORATED     UNDER   THE    PROVISION    OF
                          COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED
                          OFFICE AT OFF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY SAHAR
                          CHAKALA ROAD PARSIWADA ANDHERI (EAST)
                          MUMBAI AND MANUFACTURING UNIT AT PLOT NO.44-
                          46, NEW INDUSTRIAL AREA, ZONE-II, MANDIDEEP,
                          DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH) AND ALSO AT
                          MEERUT ROAD, GHAZIABAD (UTTAR PRADESH)
                          THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR.
                          PANKAJ THAKUR S/O SHRI H.S. THAKUR AGED ABOUT
                          42 YEARS R/O PARLE AGRO PVT LTD. PLOT NO. 44-46
                          NEW INDUSTRIAL AREA ZONE-II, MANDIDEEP,
                          DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI JAIDEEP SIRPURKAR - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
                                THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT
                                FUND OFFICE 59, ARERA HILLS BHOPAL,
                                DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I
                                AND RECOVERY OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE,
                                BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
                                REGIONAL OFFICE, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    M/S SONGANGA ASSOCIATES, LIG 101, WARD
                                NO.12, INDIRA NAGAR MANDIDEP, RAISEN
                                THROUGH ITS WORKING PARTNER (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 4/27/2024
1:26:59 PM
                                                       2
                          (SHRI ABHISHEK ARJARIA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS.1
                          TO 3)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                            ORDER

B y the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the issuance of demand notice dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-P/4) under the provisions of Section 8(B) to Section 8(G) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (for short 'Act') whereby a notice was issued prior to attachment of movable and immovable properties of the petitioner - Parle Agro Private Limited Company up o n the allegation that recovery was initiated against one M/S Songanga Associates, Mandideep, Raisen (respondent No.4 herein) under the provisions of the Act, 1952 and the petitioner-company being the principal employer is also liable to pay the dues.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that alongwith the demand notice, relevant documents were not supplied and petitioner-company was not granted any opportunity to submit its case and directly a demand notice has been issued under Section 8(B) to Section 8(G) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. He further submits that after receipt of demand notice, the petitioner demanded the relevant documents through E-mail dated 05.02.2024, but the documents have not been supplied till today. He prays for quashing the demand notice dated 25.01.2024.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3/E.P.F. submits that order was passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, RO, Bhopal in respect of the petty contractor of the petitioner-company in the proceedings initiated under Section 7 A of the Act, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 4/27/2024 1:26:59 PM 3 1952 and the petitioner being the principal employer is also liable for the same. However, he fairly accepted that the relevant documents were not annexed with the demand notice dated 25.01.2024 and the department has filed the relevant documents alongwith the return of the present petition. He further submits that upon issuance of demand notice, the petitioner may appear before the competent recovery officer and submit its objections and the competent recovery officer will consider & decide the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company. He prays for dismissal of the present petition.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties a n d the material available on record, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner-company is at liberty to file the detailed objection to the demand notice dated 25.01.2024 before the Recovery Officer within a period of 15 days from today.

(ii) If the petitioner wishes to file objections before the Recovery Officer, the same shall be decided by the Recovery Officer on its own merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company in accordance with law.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

(VINAY SARAF) JUDGE @shish Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 4/27/2024 1:26:59 PM