AI Insights
The case involves a group of petitioners, all senior citizens, who challenged the endorsements and demand notes issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) and other related authorities. They claimed these were arbitrary and violated their constitutional rights, particularly concerning their pension entitlements. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash these communications and demanded recalculation of their pensions based on higher salary contributions without the additional 1.16% contribution. The respondents, including the Union of India and EPFO, defended the actions based on the legal framework provided by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Kumar, which addressed similar issues, was pivotal in this case, leading to the court's decision to allow the petitioners to submit fresh representations for their pension recalculations.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803790 (HC-KARNATAKA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
11-08-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.9328 OF 2020 (L-PF) BETWEEN: 1. K. GOVARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. SRINIVASACHARYA, NO.1797/B, CTS NO.6592, SECTOR NO.10, M.M. EXTENSION, BELGAUM – 590 016. EPF NO. KN/HBL/10217/10. OLD PPO NO. GBHBL00051307. 2. ARAVIND M. DESHPANDE, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. MARTHANDARAO, PLOT NO.33, CTS NO.6373, SECTOR NO.8, ANJANEYA NAGAR, M.M. EXTENSION, BELGAUM – 590 016. EPF NO. KN/HBL/10217/76. OLD PPO NO. GBHBL00061181. 3. SUBHASHCHANDRA N. SIRUR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. NEELAKANTH, P NO. 21, SHASTRI NAGAR, B.K. KANGRALI, BELGAUM – 590 010. EPF NO. KN/HBL/10217/09. OLD PPO NO. GBHBL00064658. 4. SHANTARAM B. NAIK, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. BEERANNA NAIK, NO.209, KUTIR RANI CHANNAMMA HOUSING SOCIETY, SECTOR NO.6/2, SHREENAGAR, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 BELGAUM – 590 017. EPF NO. KN/HBL/10217/16. OLD PPO NO. GBHBL00059574. 5. SRIRANGA K. JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. SRIKRISHNAJI, NO.110, GAYANAGANGA, RAMATHEERTHA NAGAR, BELGAUM – 560 016. EPF NO. KN/HBL/10217/89. OLD PPO NO. GBHBL00052221. 6. DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. MADLETAPPA, SHRIHARI NILAYA, NO. 715, NEAR CAR TANK BUILDING, NEW EXTENSION, HEGGERE, TUMKUR – 572 107. EPF NO. PY/PNY/6739/235. OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/22047. 7. V.N. KONDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. V. CHIKKANAGAIAH, H. NO. P3, APOORVA ELITE, RADHAREDDY LAYOUT ROAD, SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 035. EPF NO. PY/PNY/6739/394. OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/18161. 8. RAMADASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. BETTAYYA, NO.19/20, PLOT NO.5, TEJASWINI RESIDENCY, 4TH CROSS, PATTEGARPALYA, SRINIVAS NAGAR-VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 072. EPF NO. KN/MLR/4137/90. OLD PPO NO. KN/MLR/106990. 9. GANESH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 S/O. LATE G.N. NANJUNDAIAH, NO.GT-28, 2ND MAIN, 3RD STAGE, AECS LAYOUT, FLE HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, NAGASHETTYHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 094. EPF NO. PY/BOM/3713/2746. OLD PPL NO. PY/BOM/00003011. 10. K.V. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA, NO.66 B, POLICE LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, SPP NAGAR, LALITHADRIPURA POST, MYSORE – 570 028. EPF NO. PY/BOM/6787/1315. OLD PPO NO. KN/MYS/29539. 11. H.N. SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE H.S. NARASIMHA MURTHY, NO.53/54, ASHIRVADA, 5TH CROSS, SIMHADRI LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 061. EPF NO. PY/BOM/6787/908. OLD PPO NO. BG/BNG/68407. (PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 11 ARE SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066. REPRESENTED BY - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, (CPFC). 3. THE ADDL. CENTRAL P.F. COMMISSIONER (HQ) ZONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA: GOA EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION “KAVERI”, BHAVISHYA NIDHI ENCLAVE HMT MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 013 4. ASST. PF COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK NO.10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 025. 5. ASST. PF COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BOMMSANDRA-2, ANNAPURNESHWARI COMPLEX, SY. NO. 37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 068. 6. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, TUMKUR 1ST FLOOR, BILWASHREE ARCADE, 15TH CROSS, S.I.T. MAIN ROAD, TUMKUR– 572 103. 7. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, PEENYA #62, 3RD CROSS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SUBURB, YESHWANTHPUR, 2 ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 022. 8. ASST. PF COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, SILVA ROAD, HIGHLANDS, MANGALORE – 575 002. 9. BELAGAVI DIST. CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ SOCIETIES UNION LTD., BELAGAVI DAIRY PREMISES, KANBARGI ROAD, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA – 590 016. - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 10. TUMKURU DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ SOCIETIES UNION LTD., B.H. ROAD, MALLASANDRA, TUMKUR – 572 102. 11. DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS MILK UNION LTD., KULASHEKARA, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA – 575 005. 12. BENGALURU URBAN, BENGALURU RURAL AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ SOCIETIES UNION LTD., DR. M.H.MARI GOWDA ROAD, BANGALURU – 560 029. 13. THEKARNATAKA COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ FEDERATION LIMITED KMF COMPLEX, M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHANTI BHUSHAN, DSG FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-8; SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-12; SRI B. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-9 & R-13; NOTICE TO R-10 & R-11 – SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FOLLOWING ENDORSEMENT / COMMUNICATIONS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PF AUTHORITIES TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-B, B1 TO B4 TO THE WRIT PETITION AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, i. ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.KN/GLB/HBL/PEN/2019-20/334 DATED 29.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-4 TO THE P-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION PERTAINING TO BENGALURU BENCH HAVING BEEN COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT SITTING AT KALABURAGI BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 ORDER The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking for the following reliefs: (a) “Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the following endorsements/communications issued by the Respondent PF Authorities to the Petitioners herein at Annexure B, B1 to B4 to the Writ Petition as being arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India; i. Endorsement bearing No. KN/GLB/HBL/Pen/2019- 20/334 dated 29.05.2019issued by the 4th Respondent to the 1st Petitioner vide Annexure B. ii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/GLB/HBL/Pen/2019- 20dated 24.05.2019issued by the 4th Respondent to the 2ndPetitioner vide B1. iii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/GLB/HBL/Pen/2019- 20dated 24.05.2019issued by the 4th Respondent to the 3rdPetitioner vide B2. iv. Endorsement bearing No. KN/GLB/HBL/Pen/2019- 20 dated 24.05.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to the 4thPetitioner vide B3. v. Endorsement bearing No. KN/GLB/HBL/Pen/2019- 20 dated 24.05.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to the 5th Petitioner vide B4. - 7 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 (b) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the demand notes issued to the Petitioners only insofar as it relates to 1.16% additional contribution (where it is included in the Demand note) that is imposed in the following demand notes- i. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/198/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.1 vide Annexure A. ii. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/202/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.2 vide Annexure A1. iii. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/199/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.3 vide Annexure A2. iv. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/207/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.4 vide Annexure A3. v. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/195/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.5 vide Annexure A4. vi. Demand note bearing number KN/TMK/RO/A/C 20/03/2018-19/192 dated 16.01.2019 issued by the 6th Respondent to Petitioner No.6 vide Annexure A5. vii. Demand note bearing number KN/TMK/RO/A/C 20/03/2019-20/29 dated 25.04.2019 issued by the 6th Respondent to Petitioner No.7 vide Annexure A6. - 8 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 viii. Demand note bearing number KN/MN/RO/PENSION-1/142/2019-20 dated 22.05.2019 issued by the 8th Respondent to Petitioner No.8 vide Annexure A7. ix. Demand note bearing number KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92 (5)/318/2018-19 dated 01.03.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to Petitioner No.9 vide Annexure A8. x. Demand note bearing number KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92 (5)/146/2018-19 dated 10.01.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to Petitioner No.10 vide Annexure A9. xi. Demand note bearing number KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92(5)/209/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to Petitioner No.11 vide Annexure A10. (c) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondents No.2 to 8, as applicable, to receive the difference of contribution as per the demand notes issued to the Petitioners vide Annexure A, A1 to A10 (after dropping the 1.16% additional contribution in cases where it is included) and consequently revise pension on higher salary on the basis of the contributions so received from the Petitioners and their employers, to pay and continue to pay the revised pension to the Petitioners; - 9 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 (d) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondents No.2 to 8, as applicable, to pay arrears along with interest on the pension that becomes payable after receiving the difference of contribution in pursuance of the following demand notes (after dropping the 1.16% additional contribution where it is imposed)- i. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/198/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.1 vide Annexure A. ii. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/202/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.2 vide Annexure A1. iii. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/199/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.3 vide Annexure A2. iv. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/207/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.4 vide Annexure A3. v. Demand note bearing number KN/HBL/195/2019 dated 26.04.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to Petitioner No.5 vide Annexure A4. vi. Demand note bearing number KN/TMK/RO/A/C 20/03/2018-19/192 dated 16.01.2019 issued by the 6th Respondent to Petitioner No.6 vide Annexure A5. vii. Demand note bearing number KN/TMK/RO/A/C 20/03/2019-20/29 dated 25.04.2019 issued by - 10 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 the 6th Respondent to Petitioner No.7 vide Annexure A6. viii. Demand note bearing number KN/MN/RO/PENSION-1/142/2019-20 dated 22.05.2019 issued by the 8th Respondent to Petitioner No.8 vide Annexure A7. ix. Demand note bearing number KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92 (5)/318/2018-19 dated 01.03.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to Petitioner No.9 vide Annexure A8. x. Demand note bearing number KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92 (5)/146/2018-19 dated 10.01.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to Petitioner No.10 vide Annexure A9. xi. Demand note bearing number KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92(5)/209/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to Petitioner No.11 vide Annexure A10. (e) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent No.2 to 8, as applicable, to take into consideration, the arrears of salary including D.A. arrears, pay scale revision arrears, incremental arrears, if any, e.t.c., for the purpose of determination of pensionable salary and calculation of pension; (f) Grant costs; and - 11 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 (g) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri. Abhinav Ramanand .A, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Shanti Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1, Smt. Nandita Haldipur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 8, Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.12 and Sri. B. Sudhakar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 13. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809 [R.C. Gupta] vide order dated 04.10.2016, the respondents are not granting the legitimate entitlements of pension to the petitioners on higher salary. - 12 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Apex Court in the case of the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar .B and Ors. Etc., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1521 [Sunil Kumar] has issued certain directions on the basis of which, the pension amount has to be recalculated and the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra has held at paragraph No.36 as under: “36. The other aspect of the controversy involves changing the method of computation of the pensionable salary. We have given the points and counter points articulated by the contesting parties pertaining to this feature of the controversy earlier in this judgment. In our opinion, this change of methodology comes within the power of the Central Government to modify a scheme under Section 7 of the 1952 Act read with item 10 of the Schedule III to the Act as also paragraph 32 of the scheme. This alteration of computation is ancillary to - 13 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 determination of scale of pension alongwith pensionary benefits and paragraph 32 of the pension scheme specifically authorises the Central Government to alter the rate of contribution payable under the Scheme or the scale of any benefit admissible under the scheme. There is a reasonable basis for effecting change in the computation methodology for determining pensionable salary and we do not find any illegality or unconstitutionality in effecting this amendment.” 6. The Apex Court has held in the said para, that a change of methodology comes within the power of the Central Government to modify a Scheme under Section 7 of 1952 Act read with item No.10 of Schedule III of the Act as also para No.32 of the Pension Scheme. 7. The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case stated supra has issued certain directions, which reads as under: “44. We accordingly hold and direct: (i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their - 14 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent subparagraphs. (ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed. (iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1st September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. (iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 - 15 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 did not provide for any cut off date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cutoff date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with. (v) The employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option - 16 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment. (vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014. (vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000/ per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary - 17 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees’ contribution shall be as stop gap measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made. (viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary. (ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (preamendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph. (x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos.619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms.” 8. The present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra. In light of the same, it would be appropriate, - 18 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 if this Court directs the petitioner/s to give representation/s to the pension authorities to recalculate the pension in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case stated supra. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage, submits that the interim order granted by this Court on 04.09.2020 to be continued till consideration of the representation by the respondent-authority. 10. There is substantial force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the interim order granted by this Court on 04.09.2020 in W.P. No.8767/2020 to be continued till the consideration of the representation by the respondent, in accordance with law. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner/s to submit representation/s to the respondent-authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order - 19 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 9328 of 2020 and if such representation is/are made, respondent- authorities to consider the same within a period of four weeks, in light of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra, in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE MBM "
Other Referred Cases
R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others, Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar .B and Ors. Etc.
Laws Referred To
Constitution of India
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Declaration of Gift
Mehul₹500
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026