Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N. J. JAMADAR
B.T. Kadlag Constructions, A Private Limited Company – Appellant
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organization – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a prohibitory order dated 22nd August 2025 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner / Recovery Officer, Nashik (R1), whereby the Petitioner has been restrained from making payment of the amount which the Petitioner owes to M/s Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd (R2), the employer or to any person whomsoever, except the Recovery Officer.
3. The background facts leading to this Petition can be stated in brief as under:
3.1 Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (R2) was an employer. The employer committed default in payment of the provident fund and other dues. The Respondent No. 2 was in arrears of provident fund and other sums to the tune of Rs.2,52,17,137/-. Recovery certificates were issued.
3.2 Respondent No.2 had availed financial facilities from Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Nashik (R3). In the wake of default in the discharge of the liabilities, the Respondent No.3 initiated action under the Securitiza
The EPF Act prioritizes workers' dues over all other liabilities, and prohibitory orders must comply with statutory inquiry procedures to protect employees' rights.
The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prevails over the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, allowing se....
Recovery order under EPF Act Section 8-F(3)(i) quashed for lacking prior reasonable notice and hearing opportunity; eight-year-old notice stale; natural justice mandatory in quasi-judicial recovery p....
Damages under Section 14B cannot be imposed without arrears; compliance with the Act negates default, and mens rea is not essential for penalties.
The recovery for money due, including provident fund contribution and damages recoverable under Section 16, has to be made by the Government. The Act requires an authorized officer to conduct an inqu....
Point of Law : Provident Fund is not a tax. It is an amount collectable to the benefit of an individual identified employee as a social welfare measure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
