SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249152

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
ICICI BANK LTD. AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES' PF ORG. AND ANR – Respondent
WP/340/2019



##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-AS:57004

wp340-2019-J.doc

AGK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.340 OF 2019

1. ICICI Bank Limited, a company

incorporated under the Companies

Act, and scheduled bank within

the meaning of the Reserve Bank

of India Act, 1934, having it’s

Corporate office at ICICI Bank Towers,

ATUL

GANESH

Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),

KULKARNI

Digitally signed by Mumbai – 400 051

ATUL GANESH

KULKARNI

Date: 2025.12.23

17:07:47 +0530

2. Basavraj Arbhanad,

Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.,

having office at 18/20 C.P. Street,

Jeewan Jyoti Building, Fort,

Mumbai 400 023 … Petitioners

V/s.

1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

Employees’ Provident Fund

Organization, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, Government of India,

having it’s Regional Office at

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,

Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow 226 010.

2. Sahara India Employees Contributory

Provident Fund Trust, having it’s

Command Office at Sahara India

Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex,

Lucknow – 226 024. … Respondents

1

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 13:19:55 :::

##PAGE2##

wp340-2019-J.doc

Mr. Firoz Bharucha with Mr. Mayur Bhojwani & Ulrik

Jehangir i/by Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the

petitioners.

Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha for respondent No.1.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 19, 2025

PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 23, 2025

JUDGMENT:

1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They are

aggrieved by the orders dated 18 July 2018 and 19 December

2018 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 8F of the

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952. They also challenge the notices issued from time to time,

particularly the notice dated 28 November 2018, by which the

petitioner was wrongly declared as a defaulter under Section 8F(3)

(x) of the said Act.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are

thus. From the year 2016, respondent No.2 invested the provident

fund contributions of its employees with petitioner No.1 by

opening a fixed deposit account which did not permit premature

closure. Before making such investment, respondent No.2 was

expressly informed by an email dated 1 October 2016 that the

fixed deposit would not carry any facility of premature

withdrawal.

2

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 13:19:55 :::

##PAGE3##

wp340-2019-J.doc

3. On 11 April 2018, respondent No.1 issued a letter to

respondent No.2 stating that the exemption earlier granted under

the said Act stood cancelled. Respondent No.2 was directed to

comply with the provisions of the Act as an unexempted

establishment with effect from April 2018. Thereafter, on 13 July

2018 and 15 July 2018, respondent No.2 was again informed that

as per the agreed terms, no interest would be payable in case of

premature closure of the fixed deposit.

4. In May 2018, respondent No.2 addressed an undated letter

to petitioner No.1. In the said letter, respondent No.2 recorded the

cancellation of exemption and requested premature withdrawal of

the provident fund amounts invested with petitioner No.1. On 18

July 2018, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order under

Section 8F of the said Act, directing petitioner No.1 to remit all

amounts lying to the credit of respondent No.2. In compliance,

petitioner No.1 processed the premature withdrawal of the non

callable fixed deposit and, on 21 July 2018, remitted a sum of

Rs.37,56,54,983 by demand draft.

5. Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the petitioners

and respondent No.1 on the question whether any accrued interest

was payable on a fixed deposit which did not permit premature

withdrawal.

6. On 16 August 2018, respondent No.1 recorded that the

details of interest accrued till date had not been furnished and

directed petitioner No.1 to remit the accrued interest by demand

draft. On 6 September 2018, petitioner No.1 furnished details of

3

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 13:19:55 :::

##PAGE4##

wp340-2019-J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top