{"id":180594,"date":"2011-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-06-18T10:45:25","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T05:15:25","slug":"satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund &#8230; on 17 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund &#8230; on 17 October, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S. Muralidhar<\/div>\n<pre>         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                                 Reserved on: October 12, 2011\n                                                 Decision on: October 17, 2011\n\n                           W. P. (C) 323\/2011 and CM APPL 593\/2011\n\n         SATYAM ENTERPRISES                                    ..... Petitioner\n                       Through:                  Mr. R. R. Kumar with\n                                                 Mr. Bharat Sangal, Advocates.\n\n                           versus\n\n\n         ASSTT. PROVIDENT FUND\n         COMMISSIONER                                          ..... Respondent\n                         Through:                Ms. Shrabani Chakrabarty, Advocate.\n\n                           W. P. (C) 324\/2011 and CM APPL 595\/2011\n\n         SACHINAM ENTERPRISES                                  ..... Petitioner\n                       Through:                  Mr. R. R. Kumar with\n                                                 Mr. Bharat Sangal, Advocates.\n\n                           versus\n\n\n         ASSTT. PROVIDENT FUND\n         COMMISSIONER                                          ..... Respondent\n                         Through:                Ms. Shrabani Chakrabarty, Advocate.\n\n                  W. P. (C) 325\/2011 and CM APPL 597\/2011\n\n         SUNDARAM ENTERPRISES                                  ..... Petitioner\n                       Through:                  Mr. R. R. Kumar with\n                                                 Mr. Bharat Sangal, Advocates.\n\n                           versus\n\n\n         ASSTT. PROVIDENT FUND\n         COMMISSIONER                                          ..... Respondent\n                         Through:                Ms. Shrabani Chakrabarty, Advocate.\n\n         CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR\n\n  1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n        allowed to see the judgment?                                  No\n  2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?                        No\n  3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?            No\n\nW. P. (C) Nos. 323, 324 &amp; 325 of 2011                                             Page 1 of 6\n                                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                         17.10.2011<\/p>\n<p>1. These three petitions involve similar set of facts and are being disposed of by this<br \/>\ncommon judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Satyam Enterprises [the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 323 of 2011], Sachinam<br \/>\nEnterprises [the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 324 of 2011] and Sundaram Enterprises<br \/>\n[the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 325 of 2011] are sister concerns engaged in the<br \/>\nbusiness of exhibition of films. Each of the Petitioners was running a cinema theater<br \/>\nnamed \u201eSatyam\u201f, \u201eSachinam\u201f and \u201eSundaram\u201f respectively in Mumbai. It is stated that<br \/>\nin view of the change in cinema exhibition technology and on account of the<br \/>\nGovernment of Maharashtra offering 100% entertainment tax-exemption for five years<br \/>\nand 75% entertainment tax exemption for a further period of five years on multiplex<br \/>\ncinemas, the business of the Petitioners gradually came down by an average of 80% to<br \/>\n10% of ticket sales collections. With the financial downslide they were even unable to<br \/>\npay their water and electricity bills resulting in disconnection. The Petitioners\u201f<br \/>\noperations were suspended from 12th November 2001. It is claimed that none of the<br \/>\nemployees of the Petitioners has been paid wages thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Each of the Petitioners addressed a letter dated 26th November 2001 to the Deputy<br \/>\nCollector of Mumbai, Entertainment Duty Division stating, inter alia, that film<br \/>\nexhibition has been suspended in the respective cinema halls from 12th November<br \/>\n2001. A similar intimation was sent to the cinema tax authority of the Brihan Mumbai<br \/>\nMahanagarpalika (\u201eBMC\u201f). The Assistant Engineer (Water Works) of the BMC was<br \/>\nlikewise informed by the owner of the buildings Manish Estates Pvt. Ltd. The<br \/>\nPetitioner received a letter dated 10th January 2002 from the Bombay Electricity<br \/>\nSupply and Transport (\u201eBEST\u201f) stating that the Petitioners had failed to pay arrears of<br \/>\nelectricity bills and that as a reason thereof the electricity has been disconnected and<br \/>\nthe meter would be removed. The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 27th February<br \/>\n2002 to the Assistant Assessor and Collector of the BMC placing the above facts on<br \/>\nrecord and requesting that they be treated as closed down for the purposes of<br \/>\ndetermination of rateable value of the properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. On 30th March 2002, each of the Petitioners received a communication dated 18th<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W. P. (C) Nos. 323, 324 &amp; 325 of 2011                                        Page 2 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n March 2002 from the office of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (\u201eAPFC\u201f)<br \/>\nMumbai, the Respondent herein, fixing the date of hearing as 30th March 2002. In<br \/>\nresponse thereto, the Petitioners on 2nd April 2002 informed the Respondent that they<br \/>\nhad stopped the operation of the cinema theatres since 12th November 2001. The<br \/>\nPetitioners were asked by the APFC to produce the relevant records. The Petitioners<br \/>\nkept seeking time stating that there was no staff and also in the absence of any<br \/>\nelectricity it was difficult to gather the records and produce them before the<br \/>\nRespondent. The Petitioners sought time by letters dated 27th May, 12th June and 5th<br \/>\nAugust 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. By a notice dated 31st October 2002 the Petitioners terminated the services of all<br \/>\ntheir employees and closed down the establishments. The closure notice was<br \/>\nchallenged by the Mumbai Labour Union before the Labour Court. This was brought<br \/>\nto the attention of the Respondent by the Petitioners marking copies of the letter dated<br \/>\n29th November 2002 addressed by them to the Mumbai Labour Union. The Petitioners<br \/>\nmade further requests for time to produce records by letters dated 22nd July 2003 and<br \/>\n24th February 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. On 26th February 2004 the Respondent APFC passed two separate orders under<br \/>\nSection 7A of the Employees\u201f Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,<br \/>\n1952 (\u201eEPF Act\u201f) calling upon the Petitioners to pay the demanded sums for the period<br \/>\nbetween January 2000 to March 2003. The amounts determined by the APFC to be<br \/>\npayable by Sachinam Enterprises, the Petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 324 of 2011, was<br \/>\nRs. 6,78,561\/- and for Sundaram Enterprises, the Petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 325 of<br \/>\n2011, Rs. 10,24,803\/-. For Satyam Enterprises, the Petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 323 of<br \/>\n2011, the APFC passed two orders under Section 7A EPF Act; one dated 22 nd May<br \/>\n2003 demanding a sum of Rs. 15,03,653\/- for the period between November 1998 and<br \/>\nJanuary 2002, and the other dated 11th March 2004 demanding a sum of Rs. 3,30,498\/-<br \/>\nfor the period between February and October 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Against the demand orders as above, the Petitioners filed review applications under<br \/>\nSection 17B of the EPF Act. These were rejected by the APFC by orders dated 23rd<br \/>\nJune 2004 on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 31st<br \/>\nAugust 2004 was issued to the Petitioners for issuance of arrest warrants. The<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W. P. (C) Nos. 323, 324 &amp; 325 of 2011                                        Page 3 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n Petitioners filed appeals before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal<br \/>\n(\u201eTribunal\u201f). By the common order dated 2nd March 2005, the Tribunal stayed the<br \/>\nimpugned orders of the APFC subject to the Petitioners depositing 40% of the<br \/>\ndetermined amount in each order. Pursuant thereto each of the Petitioners deposited<br \/>\ntheir respective 40% amounts.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. In proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (\u201eDRT\u201f), Mumbai<br \/>\nagainst the Petitioners being RP No. 466 of 2003 instituted by the Canara Bank the<br \/>\nAPFC intervened by filing applications for recovery of the EPF dues. An order dated<br \/>\n5th December 2005 was passed by the Recovery Officer of the DRT, the operative<br \/>\nportion of which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>         &#8220;i.      An amount of Rs. 19,71,530\/- be deposited in a Fixed Deposit<br \/>\n                  for a period of 6 months in the name of \u201eR.O.-EPF Claim.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>         ii.      The EPF Organisation is directed to make M\/s. Manish Estate<br \/>\n                  Pvt. Ltd. as a Party to their proceedings in the Appellate<br \/>\n                  Tribunal in their favour for release of the funds from the sale<br \/>\n                  proceeds of the property which belongs to M\/s. Manish Estate<br \/>\n                  Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>         iii.     No order as to costs.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>9. It is stated that the aforesaid amount continues to remain in a fixed deposit and the<br \/>\nAPFC has made no move to get the said amount released to it. By the impugned orders<br \/>\ndated 15th October 2010 the Tribunal dismissed the Petitioners\u201f appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Mr. R. R. Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that none of the<br \/>\ngrounds urged by the Petitioners have been dealt with by the Tribunal. In particular,<br \/>\nthe documents to show that the Petitioners\u201f respective theatres had stopped operations<br \/>\nafter 12th November 2001 were not even considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel<br \/>\nfurther submits that the determination of the demanded amount in respect of the<br \/>\nPetitioners is for two distinct periods; one, upto January 2000 and the other for the<br \/>\nperiod from January 2000 to March 2003. It is submitted that after the cinema halls<br \/>\nceased functioning with effect from 12th November 2001 none of the employees were<br \/>\npaid wages. In fact, there was no demand made by any of the employees about their<br \/>\nPF dues being not paid by any of the Petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that while<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W. P. (C) Nos. 323, 324 &amp; 325 of 2011                                          Page 4 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n for the period prior to 12th November 2001 the Petitioners chould be made liable for<br \/>\nPF dues and the amount already deposited should be adjusted against such dues, for<br \/>\nthe subsequent period when the cinema halls were not in operation the Petitioners<br \/>\nshould not be made liable for the alleged PF dues.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Ms. Shrabani Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand<br \/>\npoints out that despite sufficient opportunities the Petitioners failed to produce the<br \/>\nrecords to show that they had in fact closed their theatres from 12th November 2001<br \/>\nonwards. In the absence of any document being produced by the Petitioners, it was not<br \/>\npossible for the APFC or the Tribunal to accept such a contention. The burden was on<br \/>\nthe Petitioners to show that their theatres stopped functioning after 12th November<br \/>\n2001 and they had failed to discharge this burden. Till a notice was sent to them none<br \/>\nof the Petitioners actually intimated the Respondent about the closure of their cinema<br \/>\nhalls. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned orders of the Tribunal in each of the<br \/>\ncases do not call for interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. The above submissions have been considered. It appears that each of the<br \/>\nPetitioners had produced contemporaneous documents in the form of letters addressed<br \/>\nto the BMC and the BEST that the cinema halls had ceased functioning after 12th<br \/>\nNovember 2001. While the burden was on the Petitioners to substantiate this fact by<br \/>\nproducing the relevant records, it was equally possible for the Enforcement Officer<br \/>\n(\u201eEO\u201f) in the office of the APFC to inspect the business premises of the Petitioners and<br \/>\nascertain if indeed any of the cinema halls were functioning after 12th November 2001<br \/>\nand whether any of the employees continued in service thereafter. The counter<br \/>\naffidavit is completely silent on this aspect. It also appears from the impugned orders<br \/>\nof the APFC that no such attempt was made to ascertain the factual position.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. Considering the contemporaneous records produced by the Petitioners, copies of<br \/>\nwhich have been enclosed with the writ petitions, the case of the Petitioners that the<br \/>\noperations in the three cinema halls ceased from 12th November 2001 onwards appears<br \/>\nto be a plausible one. Moreover, the Petitioners have taken a fair stand that they are<br \/>\nliable to pay the PF dues for the period prior thereto. The Petitioners have also<br \/>\ndemonstrated their bona fides by depositing 40% of the determined amount pursuant<br \/>\nto the stay granted by the Tribunal. Further, a sum of Rs. 19,71,530\/- has been kept in<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W. P. (C) Nos. 323, 324 &amp; 325 of 2011                                          Page 5 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n a fixed deposit towards EPF dues in terms of the order dated 5th December 2005 of the<br \/>\nDRT.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. Consequently, the impugned orders of demand and determination by the APFC<br \/>\nwhich have been upheld by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 10th October<br \/>\n2010 are hereby modified by directing that the demand and determination of the PF<br \/>\ndues by each of the Petitioners is restricted to the period upto 12th November 2001 and<br \/>\nnot thereafter. The amounts so determined as due by the APFC will be recovered from<br \/>\neach of the Petitioners, in the following manner. The amounts already deposited by the<br \/>\nPetitioners will be adjusted against the said dues. Further, the sum of Rs. 19,71,530\/-<br \/>\nkept in a fixed deposit pursuant to the order dated 5th December 2005 passed by the<br \/>\nDRT, together with interest accrued thereon, will be released forthwith to the<br \/>\nRespondent APFC for adjustment against the aforementioned EPF dues upto 12th<br \/>\nNovember 2001. If there is any balance amount of EPF due up to that date, the APFC<br \/>\ncan take steps against each of the Petitioners in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. The pending<br \/>\napplications are also disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                             S. MURALIDHAR, J<br \/>\nOCTOBER 17, 2011<br \/>\nak<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W. P. (C) Nos. 323, 324 &amp; 325 of 2011                                       Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund &#8230; on 17 October, 2011 Author: S. Muralidhar IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: October 12, 2011 Decision on: October 17, 2011 W. P. (C) 323\/2011 and CM APPL 593\/2011 SATYAM ENTERPRISES &#8230;.. Petitioner Through: Mr. R. R. Kumar with Mr. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund ... on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund ... on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T05:15:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund &#8230; on 17 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T05:15:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1757,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund ... on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T05:15:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund &#8230; on 17 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund ... on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund ... on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T05:15:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund &#8230; on 17 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T05:15:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011"},"wordCount":1757,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011","name":"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund ... on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T05:15:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyam-enterprises-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satyam Enterprises vs Asst. Provident Fund &#8230; on 17 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}