Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. V. Union of India and Ors

W.P.(C)/13240/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (petitioner) seeking a mandamus to determine the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPFMP Act, 1952) by the second respondent, following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner also sought the quashing of summons and letters issued by the respondents regarding the coverage of banks under the EPFMP Act. The court did not delve into the merits of the challenge to the impugned notification but focused on the procedural aspect, directing the third respondent to address the petitioner's representation effectively.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701078 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AKSHAY MAKHIJA; ANKIT TYAGI; KESHAV MOHAN; PIYUSH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: DHRUV MEHTA; SANJAY GUPTA; ATEEV MATHUR; VARSHA KIRPALANI; KIRAN BAPAT
• Keywords: Applicability; Mandamus; Notification; Quashing; Summons; Coverage of banks
• Section: 7-A(1)(a)

Judgement Text

" W.P.(C) 13240/2018 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 07, 2018 + W.P.(C) 13240/2018 & CMs 51523-24/2018 HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Ateev Mathur, Ms. Varsha Kirpalani and Mr. Kiran Bapat, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr. Ankit Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Keshav Mohan, Standing Counsel with Mr. Piyush Choudhary, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL) 1. A mandamus is sought to second respondent to determine the applicability of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the EPFMP Act, 1952’) W.P.(C) 13240/2018 Page 2 of 4 after following the procedure as prescribed in Section 7-A(1)(a) of the said EPFMP Act, 1952. Quashing of summons dated 5th November, 2018 (Annexure P-23) and respondents’ letter of 5th November, 2018 (Annexure P-25) issued by third respondent to the Director of Income Tax is also sought in this petition while seeking quashing of Central Government’s Notification of 10th February, 2016 (Annexure P-2) and letter of 30th March, 2016 (Annexure P-10) on the subject of coverage of banks. 2. Upon notice, learned standing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that petitioner has not effectively responded to the summons (Annexure P-23). 3. At this stage, learned senior counsel for petitioner points out that vide Communication of 22nd November, 2018 (Annexure P-24), petitioner had sought eight weeks’ time to produce the record, provided it is clarified that the records of which relevant years are sought. In this Communication, petitioner has reiterated that the EPFMP Act, 1952 is not applicable to petitioner-Bank. 4. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that a detailed Representation highlighting inapplicability of the EPFMP Act, 1952, was made to respondent No.3 on 27th September, 2018. It is submitted that there is no response by respondents No.2 or 3 to the said detailed Representation of 27th September, 2018. 5. At this stage, learned standing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that respondent No.3 has already given a response to petitioner’s earlier Representations of 22nd January, 2018 (Annexure P-15) and 6th W.P.(C) 13240/2018 Page 3 of 4 February, 2018 (Annexure P-17). It is clarified by learned standing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 that petitioner has been called upon to produce the documents for a period post the Notification of 10th February, 2016 (Annexure P-2). 6. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the documents sought vide summons (Annexure P-23) would be produced before respondent No.3 during the course of personal hearing which be provided by third respondent. Such a course is being adopted because there is no response to the said detailed Representation of 27th September, 2018 (P- 22). 7. Upon having heard at length, I find that petitioner certainly has a arguable case which requires examination but the challenge to impugned Notification is not required to be gone into in these proceedings as examination of documents ought to be undertaken by third respondent. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this petition and the applications are disposed of with direction to third respondent to give a effective speaking response to petitioner’s Representation of 27th September, 2018 (Annexure P-22) within a period of six weeks and in any case, within twelve weeks, after providing an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, to produce the requisite documents in terms of Section 7- A(1)(a) of the EPFMP Act, 1952. The fate of the said Representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner can avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. Till it is so done, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned summons of 5th November, 2018 (Annexure P-23) be kept in abeyance. W.P.(C) 13240/2018 Page 4 of 4 8. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of while not commenting upon the merits. Copy of this order be given Dasti to counsel for the parties. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER 07, 2018 s "