M/s Total Drugs and Intermediates Pvt. Ltd., V. The Union of India

WP/3472/2015

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Total Drugs and Intermediates Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director Mr. A Ashok Reddy, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and its regional and assistant provident fund commissioners. The petition sought to challenge an order directing the petitioner to pay a substantial amount for the period from April 1996 to June 2010, citing the order as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition due to non-representation by the petitioner on the scheduled hearing dates.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725718 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Employee Provident Fund Act, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: G VARLU
• Assessee Lawyers: CH
• Keywords: Civil Prison; Employee Provident Fund; Natural Justice; Recovery Action; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 89; 88

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HO BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR X^ [ 3256 I ...PETITlONER WRIT PETITION NO:3472 OF 2015 Between: M/s Total Druqs and rntermed.iates pvt. Ltd.,, Rep by its Director M.r. A Ashok Reddy S/o A Rami Reddv. Aoerr _aooui+a-vEiii, oJ\"\"6iiE\"tor oopetiiioneii\"c;;;;;y Resident ot B-2-6oiich 6, Ro;d No1.G\"i\"i, nir\"rr', irvoerabad _ so. 034. AND 1. 2 The Union of lndia. Reo hv its Regional pF Commissioner_ ll, Sub Regional office, Patancheru, t'leiaati Districi_ soz irsl- \"\"\"\"'\"' The Assistant PF commissioner,, o/o the Regionar pF commissioner - .r 1, Sub Resionat office, patancher,.j; ruet;k Di;ii.i _-sbi srg ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'c&rt ,\"v'0\" pleased to is-sue an appropriate writ, order or direction more \"particuiairy o,i\" in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS, decraring the action of the 2nd n\"s'ponaent without taking into consideration of the petitioner prea i.e. tne petitionJi noi a employer for the period of 04/'r 996 ro 061201o further there is aohormar oerav ot 11.1:T,_tI9 2nd Resp_ordent direcfly passed the orders ViOe OrAer-'rrro. APISRO, PfCt 27487.2tpD O2l14B Oiderst2014t3501 dated 29_10-2014, by directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs 14,90,.r szr[ Fourteen Lakhs Ninety Thousand and One Fi y Seven Rupees Onlyl 'for the Orrrgl, ;A interest within 1s days from the date of receipt of this order for the p\"erioJ of 04/1 996 to 06/2010 and fu(her informed that nonpayment of amount wifl attract recovery action U/s 88 to gG of the Emproyee provident Fund Act r.rJ *itn second and third schedure to the income tax Act and the income tax lcertiricate proceedings) rules which includes attachment and sare of movable/immovabre property, arrest and detention in civil prison and further infcirmed that 'No further representation will be entertained is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and against the principles of naturar justice and consequenfly set aside the brder No.Ap/SRO/prct27487.2tpD o2t1413 0rders/2014l5s01 aatea ze{0_zilc issued by the 2nd Respondent. : l I I l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 5( PMP. NO: 4623OF 201s) Petition urd( . section 1 5'r cpc praying that i. the li-cunrstances stated in the affidavii fir,:d in support of the petition, the Higr cou-r ma.r be preased to stay all furthe,r pro ;eedings in respect of order No.Ap/sitt(.)Tp rcl274gT .2lpD 021148 ordersl2ctl t t3so1 dated 29-10-2oi4 issued by the .2 r(r R€spondent. Counsel for the Pet tioner : SRI CH.VIDYASAGAR counsel for the Res p.ndents: sRr G.VENKATESHVAITLU (tic FoR EpFo) The Court macle the fc'ltowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.3472 of 2Ol5 ORDER: When the matter was taken up for consideration on | 1 .O7 .2023, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was dirccted to be listed on 14.07.2023 under the caption ,For Dismissal,. Today also, when the matter is taken up, there is no representation on behalf of Iearned counsel for the petitioner in spite o[ the mattcr being listed under the caption 'For Dismissal,. 2. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for default/non_ prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI OFFICER 1. 9n. CC to SRt CH.VtDyASncAR Advocate tOpUCI 2 one cc to sRr c.vENKATES-HvenL-u,isE'r6n\"Ecro1, Hish courr forthe . iffi%\"Jltansana at nyoeraoao. ioptjif - ' \"'' -' BSK GJP cl v HIGH COURI DATED:1410i 12023 ORDER WP.No.3472 o12015 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR DEFAUT T/NON.PROSECUTION WITHOUT CC STS ,4 / .., r -, '-i ,.' i, i. - -_=- - . --:< ,, .. .;-, , ;1.:,ti. C+.. .r.. 'a. :< 1r, [ t 1(i0 ,n\"-rrA/ "