Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
M/s.Shri Ram Trust – Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging order in epfa no.138 of 2022. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. claim of harsh deposit conditions. (Para 3) |
| 3. consideration of appeal under new deposit mandate. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in EPFA No.138 of
2022 dated 25.07.2025.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that when the petitioner moved an interim prayer for stay in the appeal filed against the order under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Tribunal imposed a condition to deposit 45% of the assessment amount. It is stated that the petitioner was able to deposit only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and the balance was not deposited. Therefore, the above order dated 25.07.2025 came to be passed.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the condition imposed was harsh and even when the petitioner was trying to mobilise the funds, no extension of time was granted.
4. Mr.Paneer Selvam, the learned counsel takes notice for the first respondent and he would submit that since the conditional order has not been c
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
