Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
McWane India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Recovery Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to garnishee order process (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. assessment of contribution calculations (Para 4) |
| 3. final judgment and orders of the court (Para 5) |
ORDER :
A. The Writ Petition:
B. The Case of the Petitioner:
2.1 Thereafter, the authorities once again started recovery proceedings on the ground that even though the original order under Section 45A of the Act determined the amount as Rs.53,53,990/-, the order was restricted to the C.18 (adhoc) amount alone, as the show cause notice was issued only in respect of the C.18 (adhoc) amount, that is, a sum of Rs.22,37,591/-. No notice was issued for the actual amount, that is, Rs.31,16,399/-. In view thereof, a second set of proceedings was initiated to again recover the balance sum payable, that is, Rs.31,16,399/-.
2.3 When the matter stood thus, once again the proceedings impugned in this writ petition, namely the garnishee order dated 28.05.2025, was passed, pursuant to which the money was recovered from the bank account and the petitioner is before this Court.
C. The Respondents’ case:
3.1 In any event, when recovery proceedings were earlier initiated in respect of the balance sum of Rs.31,16,399/-, the petitioner appro
The garnishee order was quashed as the appellate authority's ruling on contribution liability was comprehensive, preventing double recovery under differing claims.
The court established that determinations under the Employees’ State Insurance Act must be based on current and relevant information, emphasizing the need for fairness in quasi-judicial actions.
Authority must not invoke Section 45A for best judgment assessment unless there is no submission of required documents; disputes should be resolved in ESI Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when the order passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act is not challenged and is allowed to become final, the consequential recovery proceedin....
Mandatory determination of contributions under Section 45-A of the ESI Act is required before recovery proceedings, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitle....
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
