Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 95880
MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.01.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.A. No.2837
o.2837
The court has the discretion to impose conditions while admitting a writ petition, but such conditions should not be arbitrary or unreasonable.
Headnote:
EPF - WRIT APPEAL - CONDITIONAL INTERIM ORDER - PAYMENT OF 25% OF CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT - FURTHER DIRECTION TO PAY 50% OF DUES PENDING - UNJUSTIFIABLE - MATTER REMANDED BACK TO LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE TO HEAR THE MAIN WRIT PETITION ON MERITS AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, M/s. Devi Spinning Mills Ltd., filed a writ appeal against the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 in WMP No.36297 of 2019 in WP No.35476 of 2019. The learned Single Judge had directed the appellant to pay 50% of the dues pending, during the pendency of the writ petition. The appellant contended that the entire amount had already been paid and that the further direction to pay 50% of the dues amount was highly untenable and unjustifiable.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order dated 30.11.2022 imposing further condition and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge to hear the main writ petition on merits and pass appropriate orders.
Issues: Whether the further direction to pay 50% of the dues pending was unjustified?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the matter needed to be gone into by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the documents filed along with the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
W.A. No.2837 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A. No.2837 of 2022
M/s.Devi Spinning Mills Ltd.,
rep. By its Director, Dr.D.Venkataraman
...
Appellant
Vs
1.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Corporation,
Sub Regional Office EPFO,
S.J. Plaza, 1st & 2nd floor,
Anna Salai, Swarnapuri,
Salem 636 004
2.Assistant PF Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Corporation,
Sub Regional Office EPFO,
S.J. Plaza, 1st & 2nd floor,
Anna Salai, Swarnapuri,
Salem 636 004
3.The Recovery Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Corporation,
Sub Regional Office EPFO,
Jayalakshmi Plaza, 1st & 2nd floor,
Anna Salai, Swarnapuri,
Salem 636 004
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.2837 of 2022
4.K.Elangovan
5.M/s.MSTC,
Leelavathi Building,
2nd Floor, No.69, Armenien Street,
Chennai 600 001
...
Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 30.11.2022 in WMP No.36297 of 2019 in WP
No.35476 of 2019.
For the Appellant
:: Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi,
for Mr.S.Varsha
For the Respondents
:: Mr.P.K.Paneerselvam
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This writ appeal has been directed against the impugned order
dated 30.11.2022 in WMP No.36297 of 2019 in WP No.35476 of 2019.
2. Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that when the writ petition came up for admission, the
learned Single Judge passed a conditional interim order, directing the
appellant to pay 25% of the contribution amount determined by the
authorities. According to the appellant, the same was paid on
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.2837 of 2022
03.01.2020.
3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 30.11.2022,
the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay 50% of the
dues pending, during the pendency of the writ petition. According to
the respondents, the appellant was liable to pay a sum of
Rs.52,60,742/- towards dues. The grievance of the appellant is that
the further direction to pay 50% of the dues amount is highly
untenable and unjustifiable. According to the appellant, the entire
amount has already been paid.
4. Mr.P.K.Paneerselvam, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3
submitted that even as per the order passed by the Recovery Officer
dated 03.12.2019, the appellant has to pay a sum of Rs.71,07,157/-.
Only out of the said amount, the appellant has paid 25% as directed
by this Court. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to contend
before this Court that the conditional order directing payment of 50%
is unacceptable.
Page 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.2837 of 2022
5. The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded before us that
even the order passed by the Recovery Officer is unacceptable and
unjustified.
6. The matter needs to be gone into by the learned Single Judge
on the basis of the documents filed along with the writ petition.
Therefore, in view of the above, without entering into the disputed
issue, we set aside the order dated 30.11.2022 imposing further
condition and we remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge
to hear the main writ petition on merits and pass appropriate orders.
7. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, CMP 23213 of 2022 is closed.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
10.01.2023
Index
: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
: Yes/No
tar
Page 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.2837 of 2022
1.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Corporation,
Sub Regional Office EPFO,
S.J. Plaza, 1st & 2nd floor,
Anna Salai, Swarnapuri,
Salem 636 004
2.Assistant PF Commissioner,
