Gujarat High Court High Court

Durga vs Regional on 23 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Durga vs Regional on 23 September, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/2342/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2342 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7816 of 2010
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 12227 of 2010
 

In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2342 of 2010
 

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

 

DURGA
ENGINEERING COMPANY THRO. ASHOKBHAI P PANJARI - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (II) - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MRTULSHIRSAVANI
for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
NIRAL R MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/09/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

On
7.4.2011, Division Bench of this Court had required the counsel for
the appellant to produce calculation as well as certificate showing
deposits in Provident Fund which have been made by all the related
companies within five months from the date of that order. Time of one
month was granted. So far such details are not supplied.

We
notice that in the petition, the present appellant original
petitioner had challenged the demand by the Provident Fund
Commissioner of unpaid provident fund dues of the workman with
interest. Such petition came to be dismissed by the Learned Single
Judge, an order which is impugned in the present Letters Patent
Appeal. In the Civil Application, Division Bench granted protection
to the appellant as far back as on 10.3.2011.

It
therefore, emerges that on one hand the appellant enjoys protection
under interim order of this Court and on the other hand it has not
fulfilled the directions issued on 7.4.2011.

As
a last chance, S.O. to 30.9.2011. If by that time details asked for
by the Court on 7.4.2011 are not supplied, we would seriously
consider vacating the stay. At that time department shall also place
on record by way of an affidavit, the calculation of outstanding dues
of the appellant relatable to the issue involved in this Letters
Patent Appeal.

(Akil
Kureshi,J.)

(Ms.

Sonia Gokani,J.)

(raghu)

   

Top