M/S DIVYAMAN HOSPITAL V. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/8851/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Divyaman Hospital challenging a notice issued under sections 45-C to 45-I of the ESI Act, in conjunction with the Income Tax Act and its rules, by the Union of India and others. The hospital sought a writ of certiorari to quash the notice and prevent any coercive actions until the related ESI case was resolved. The court heard arguments from both sides but decided not to entertain the petition, noting that the hospital had already filed a related suit under the ESI Act, which was pending. The court emphasized the need for timely disposal of such interim applications, referencing its own circular mandating decisions on interim injunctions within six months.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 721875 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Gurmej Singh and 7 Others Vs. Ranjit Kaur and 2 Others
• Laws Referred To: Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA SINGH; PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA; SANJAI SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ PANDEY
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Coercive Steps; Income Tax; Interim injunction; Quashing; ESI Act
• Section: 151; 39(1); 39(2); 45-I; 45-C; 75(g)

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 42 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8851 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Divyaman Hospital Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Archana Singh,Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,Sanjai Singh Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, Union of India and Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 and 3 and Ms. Deepika Tiwari, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. Present petition has been filed with following prayer:- \"Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Notice dated 17.12.2020 issued under section 45- C to 45-I of the ESI Act read with 2nd and 3rd Schedules to Income Tax Act, 1961 and Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 by the respondent no.3. II. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner hospital in pursuance of the impugned Notice dated 17.12.2020 issued under section 45-C to 45- I of the ESI Act read with 2nd & 3rd Schedules to Income Tax Act, 1961 and Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 issued by the respondent no. 3, till disposal of ESI Case No. 318/ 2017 (M/s Divyaman Hospital Vs. Manager, Local Office Employees' State Insurance Coporation and other)\" I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. I do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition challenging the impugned notice dated 17.12.2020. However, during the course of arguments it transpires that the petitioner has already availed the remedy by filing ESI Suit No. 318 of 2017 ( M/s Divyaman Hospital vs. Manager, Local Office, ESIC, Gorakhpur and others) under Section 75 (g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. It was further pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the interim injunction application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is still pending. Although, the order-sheet of the same suit has not been annexed with the petition, however, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that he has no objection, in case, the interim injunction application is decided by the Court. This Court has already issued a Circular Letter dated 16.8.2017 for deciding interim injunction application, which is quoted as under: \"Through Registered Post/E-mail From, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, HJS, Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. To, All the District & Sessions Judges, Subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. C.L. No. 24/Admin. 'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 16.08.17 Sub: Time bound disposal of interim injunction application. Madam/Sir Hon'ble Court has directed that all the subordinate courts must ensure to dispose of applications of interim injunction within six months, failing which they shall have to record reasons in the order sheet. I am, therefore, directed to request you to circulate the instant direction amongst all the Judicial Officers working under your supervision and control and to ensure strict compliance of the same in letter and spirit. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan) No. /Admin.'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 2017. Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to: 1. The Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. 2. P.S. to all the Hon'ble Judges at Allahabad and also at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to place the same before their Lordships for kind perusal. 3. The Director, Judicial Training & Research Institute, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 4. All the Judicial Officers posted in the Registry in Allahabad High Court and Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. 5. The Member Secretary, U.P. State Legal Services Authority, III floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Annexe Lucknow. 6. Section Officer, Admin. 'H' Section for compliance of guard file.\" (Emphasis supplied) As such no further direction is required for disposal of interim injunction application. It is expected that the Court below shall follow the directions as noted above in its letter and spirit. The issue regarding disposal of 6C application has been considered by me in the case of Gurmej Singh and 7 Others Vs. Ranjit Kaur and 2 Others reported in 2021(1) ARC 86. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 2.8.2021 Aditya "