Gujarat High Court High Court

Director vs Regional on 29 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Director vs Regional on 29 July, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/5226/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5226 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================


 

DIRECTOR
THROUGH SAJJAD A MERCHANT, DIRECTOR - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
YOGI K GADHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR NIRAL R MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/07/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The
petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd September
2001 passed under section 7-A by APFC, Ahmedabad and also the
Recovery Notice dated 5th November 2004 and orders dated
28th May 2007 and 9th February 2010 passed by
EPFAT, Delhi in Appeal and Review Application respectively.

2. Mr.

Niral Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has
produced a communication dated 10th June 2010 issued by
Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization
wherein it is stated as under:

“Looking
to the records available in Account Section it reveals that
Establishment had started to remit the dues of respective month even
before the allotment of P.F. code no. Establishment has also
submitted Form 3A and Form 6A from 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and
according tot he returns total dues in respect of all accounts is
Rs.3,41,724/-. There is no short payment as per reconciliation
statement available in Account Section. The same amount has not been
considered while passing order u/s 7A as the order was passed
ex-parte due to non appearance from the establishment.”

3. The
said communication is taken on record. In view of the aforesaid
communication the prayer made in this petition is required to be
granted. Accordingly the petition is allowed by quashing the orders
impugned in the present petition. Rule is made absolute accordingly
with no order as to costs.

[K.S.

JHAVERI, J.]

AR

   

Top