High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 09 MAD CK 0258

M/s. Sara Packaging vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund, Employee Provident Fund Organization, LDC Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai -2, The Recovery Officer, Employee Provident Fund, EPF Organization, LDC Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai -2, The Enforcement Officer, Employee Provident Fund, EPF Organization, LDC Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai -2 and The Manager, Bank of India, East Avani Moola Street, Madurai

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 September 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinod K. Sharma, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No. 13951 of 2010 and M.P. (MD) No''s. 1 to 3 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 351 words

Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

1.

The Petitioner has approached this Court, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order, attaching the bank account of the Petitioner.

2.

It is not disputed, that the order u/s 7A of The Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has not been challenged, and has attained finality. It was in execution proceedings, that in exercise of power u/s 8F of the Act, the account of the Petitioner was attached.

3.

This Court, while issuing notice to the Respondents, granted Interim Stay for one week. The stay was, thereafter, not extended.

4.

It is not in dispute, that on earlier occasion, the Petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards part payment of the amount due, and the balance amount is due and payable.

5.

Once the order u/s 7A of the Act, has attained finality, no ground is made out to interfere with the execution proceedings. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states, that the Petitioner being a running concern, is willing to pay the amount in installments.

6.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondents states, that in case, any such request is made and found to be reasonable, it would be considered sympathetically.

7.

In view of the statement of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioner, to file an application for payment in installments, with the Respondents within one week from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. The Respondents are directed to take a decision thereon, within one week from the date of such request. It is made clear that in case, no such application is made, or there is default in payment of installments, it will be open to the Respondents, to proceed with the recovery against the Petitioner in accordance with law.

No costs.

Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 to 3 of 2010 are closed.