Central Board Of Trustees Epf Thr Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/S Apex Builders Ltd Thr Its Authorized Signatory

$-13 & *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ LPA 549/2015 CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF THR ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Appellant Represented by: Mr.R.C.Chawla, Advocate with Mr.D.Rajeshwar Rao and Mr.Charanjeet Singh, Advocates versus ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD THR ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Respondent Represented by: None LPA 550/2015 CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EPF THR ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Appellant Represented by: Mr.R.C.Chawla, Advocate with Mr.D.Rajeshwar Rao and Mr.Charanjeet Singh, Advocates versus M/S APEX BUILDERS LTD THR ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Respondent Represented by: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

ORDER

% 19.08.2015 By:AMULYA

CM No.

15 837/2015 in LPA No.549/2015 CMNo.15839/2015 inLPANo.550/2015 Allowed subject to just exceptions.

LPANos.549/2015 & 550/2015 1.

The respondents in the two captioned appeals have laid a challenge to orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated May 06, 2015 and May 08, 2015. The order(s) require the amount assessed under Section 7q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to be deposited as a pre-condition to the appeal(s) being heard.

2.

Vide impugned order(s) dated July 13, 2015 the learned Single Judge has adjourned hearing of the writ petition(s) to September 17, 2015 noting that connected matters involving same issues are fixed for said date and in the interregnum operation of the order(s) dated May 06, 2015 and May 08, 2015, challenged in the two writ petitions respectively have been stayed. 3.

Grievance in the appeal is to the grant of the ad-interim stay by the learned Single Judge.

4.

Suffice it to record that the learned Single Judge has found primafacie case made out in favour of the respondents which is evident from the fact that in the writ petition the Court was inclined to issue a notice to the appellant but did not do so since counsel appeared and said that no counter affidavit is intended to be filed; hence the learned Single Judge adjourned hearing of the writ petition(s) to September 17, 2015 noting that similar issues raised in the other writ petitions would be coming up for hearing before Court on September

17, 2015.

5.

We accordingly dismiss the appeal in limine but without any order as to costs, hoping that on the next date the learned Single Judge would endeavour to hear the writ petition.

CMNo.15836/2015 in LPANo.549/2015 CM No.

15 83 8/2015 inLPANo.550/2015 Dismissed.

PRADEEP NANDRAdOG, J.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

AUGUST 19, 2015 mamta