Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. pending appeals affect recovery actions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. confirmation of amounts already recovered. (Para 3) |
| 3. order to suspend recovery and release attachments. (Para 4 , 5) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is common in both these writ petitions. In W.P (C)
No.1002/2026 the petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that though appeals are pending against Exts.P1 and P3 orders imposing damages in terms of the provisions contained in Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act), the authorities have proceeded to attach bank accounts of the petitioner. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery in terms of the provisions contained in Section 8F of the 1952 Act can only be in respect of orders which have become final and not in respect of orders which are pending in appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable to obtain any order in the appeals filed on account of the fact that there is no Presiding Officer in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (the Appellate Authority).
2. In W.P (C) No.1091/2026 i
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
