High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.Hospital Development … vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 3 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
M/S.Hospital Development … vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 3 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23266 of 2010(G)


1. M/S.HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :03/08/2010

 O R D E R
                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    W.P. (C) No. 23266 of 2010
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the coercive steps taken

by the respondents by way of ‘garnishee proceedings’, causing the

bank account of the petitioner to be frozen in spite of the pendency of

the statutory appeal preferred against Ext. P2 order passed by the first

respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Ext.P3

appeal filed by the petitioner is pending and has boarded for hearing

listed on 10.08.2010, as informed to the petitioner vide notice dated

6.7.2010. Without any regard to the this, the first respondent is

proceeding against the petitioner, by way of ‘Garnishee Proceedings’;

which intimation has been served to the petitioner by the concerned

bankers, vide Ext. P4 produced along with I.A. No. 10791 of 2010.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent

as well.

3. Considering the fact that the statutory appeal (Ext. P3) has

already been posted for hearing on 10.8.2010, it is directed to be

considered and disposed of in accordance with law, as expeditiously as

possible. Further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, till

W.P. (C) No. 23266 of 2010
: 2 :

appropriate orders are passed by the second respondent/appellate

authority, in the Appeal or in the I.A. for stay, if any, as the case may

be.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd