M/S Dnyaneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Through Its Managing Director v. The Employees Provident Funds Organization Represented Through Rpfc

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3556 OF 2022 M/S DNYANESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

VERSUS

THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED THROUGH RPFC Mr.V.N.Upadhye, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.N.K.Choudhary, Advocate for the respondent. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J.) DATE : MARCH 15, 2022 PER COURT :

1.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2022 passed under Section 8-F of the E.P.F. And M.P.Act, 1952, by which the bank account of the petitioner sugar factory has been frozen for recovery of an amount of Rs.32,78,876/-, assessed as damages u/s 14-B and towards interest u/s 7-Q of the Act. 2.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner fairly submits that the CGIT-1 at Mumbai has been directing the appellants who prefer an

- 2 - appeal u/s 7-O, to deposit approximately 20% of the assessed amount u/s 14-B.

3.

I find that as the assessment under Section 14B and 7-Q is purely arithmetical and an amount of Rs.32,78,876/- is to be recovered, the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with the respondent herein and on the basis of the same, the petitioner can be protected till a Presiding Officer is appointed with the C.G.I.T.-1. 4.

Considering the above, with the deposit of Rs.10,00,000/, the petitioner can be protected till the CGIT decides it' s appeal.

5.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed off with the following directions :- [a] The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with the sole respondent within a period of 4 (four) weeks. [b] The impugned order dated 03.03.2022 shall stand set aside immediately after the above stated amount is deposited. [c] The respondent would not withdraw the entire amount from the bank account of the petitioner in view of the above.

- 3 - [d] The CGIT-1 shall decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 09.11.2021 within 4 months from the date of appearance of the parties in the matter, obviously after the Presiding Officer takes charge of the CGIT-1.

[e] Needless to state, the petitioner would be protected from coercive steps in view of the above till the CGIT decides the appeal. ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)