Madras High Court
Keystone India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 30 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)IILLJ657MAD
ORDER K. Govindarajan, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for and quash the proceedings, dated January 24, 2000, under which the petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 19,83,176 payable to the defaulter, Sivananda Steels Ltd., Chennai, the fourth respondent herein.
2. It is not in dispute, that the fourth respondent is a defaulter by non-payment of the amount to the first respondent as demanded under the Act. But on the basis that the petitioner was having money payable to the defaulter, to the tune of Rs. 19.16 lakhs, the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the said sum was passed.
3. According to the petitioner, the said amount though is payable by the petitioner to the fourth respondent, has to be adjusted against the amount payable by the respondent, towards the interest and the said Sivananda Steels Ltd., is liable to pay Rs. 2.19 lakhs more and above the said amount.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the fourth respondent is not liable to pay any such interest as claimed by the petitioner and so, the petitioner has to be directed to pay the said amount as demanded by the respondents.
5. I am not able to accept the said submission. In this proceedings, this Court is not expected to decide about the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. When the petitioner has come forward with a specific plea that the said Sivananda Steels Ltd., the defaulter is liable to pay certain amount and the amount mentioned by the respondents has to be adjusted towards the same, this Court cannot direct the petitioner to pay the amount as if the petitioner is liable to pay the amount to the fourth respondent. Admittedly, when the parties raised a dispute regarding the payment of amount, the respondents cannot insist the petitioner to pay the amount irrespective of the dispute regarding the claim between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained against the petitioner and the same is set aside.
6. If the respondents are able to get materials to show that the petitioner is having money payable to fourth respondent, they can proceed against the said money on that basis. Giving such liberty, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. and W.V.M.P. are closed.