{"id":257810,"date":"2011-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-25T13:01:01","modified_gmt":"2016-07-25T07:31:01","slug":"manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 8 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 8 September, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 08\/09\/2011\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE  MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA\n\nWrit Petition No.6725 of 2007\nand\nWrit Petition No.6726 of 2007\n\nManipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited,\nrepresented by its Manager,\nManipal House, Manipal - 576104.  \t\t\t...... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tboth W.Ps\nVs\n\n1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,\n     Employees Provident Fund Organization,\n     Regional Office, Madurai - 625 002.\n\n2. Recovery Officer,\n     Employees Provident Fund Organization,\n     Regional Office,\n     No.1, Lady Doak College Road,\n     Chokkikulam, Madurai. \t\t\t\t..... Respondent Nos.1 and 2\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin both W.Ps\nP.K.S.Sambandhan,\nS\/o. Mr. A. Samburaj,\nNo.128\/1, Police Station Street,\nSrivilliputhur Road,\nSivakasi, Virudhunagar District. \t\t\t...... Third Respondent in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tW.P.(MD)No.6725 of 2007\nA. Brahmraj,\nS\/o. P.K.S.A.Arumuga Nadar,\nPolice Station Road,\nSivakasi. \t\t\t\t\t\t..... Third Respondent in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tW.P.(MD)No.6726 of 2007\n\t\tWrit Petitions filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India,\npraying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file\nof the second respondent in Ref.No.TN\/MD\/6357\/Recy\/R.O.\/2006 dated 05.01.2006\nand Ref.No.TN\/MD\/6357\/Recy\/R.O.\/2005 dated 03.11.2005 pertaining to the\nattachment of immovable properties of the third respondent and to quash the same\nas illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.  K. Ramamoorthy\n^For Respondents... Mr.  G. R. Swaminathan\n- - - - - - - -\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t1. This order shall dispose of W.P.(MD)Nos.6725 and 6726 of 2007, as
\ncommon questions of law, and facts are involved in these matters.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from
\nW.P.(MD)No.6725 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. The petitioner  \/ Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited, is a Company
\nregistered under the Companies Act<\/a>, and petitioner in both the writ petitions
\nprays for issuance of Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order,
\npassed by the Recovery Officer, in attaching the immovable properties of the
\nthird respondent in both the writ petitions, for recovery of the amount under
\nSection 14-B<\/a> of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act<\/a>,
\n1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), from M\/s. Swamiji Mills Ltd.,
\nAnaikottam, Sivakasi.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. The Respondent No.3 in both the writ petitions are said to be
\nDirectors of M\/s.Swamiji Mills Ltd., Anaikottai, Sivakasi.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. The petitioner lent money to its registered members, who were
\nindividual persons. The petitioner does not deal with Company or Firm. In the
\nordinary course of business, the registered members of the petitioner company
\navail financial assistance from the Company and provide personal guarantee and
\nsecurity of immovable property by creating mortgage. The details of the Members
\nare under:-\n<\/p>\n
i.Mr. A. Dhanapalan,
\n\t\tS\/o. Mr. P.K.S.A.Arumuga Nadar,
\n\t\tNo.128, Police Station Street, Sivakasi.\n<\/p>\n
ii.Mr. A. Brahmoraj,
\nS\/o. Mr. P.K.S.A.Arumuga Nadar,
\n6-H\/2, Periakulam Society Colony,
\nSivakasi.\n<\/p>\n
iii.Mr. P.K.S.Sambandan,
\nS\/o. Mr. A. Samburaj,
\n128\/1, Police Station Street, Sivakasi.\n<\/p>\n
iv.Mr. R. Balachandran,
\nS\/o. Mr. A. Ranjitham,
\n129, Police Station Street,
\nSivakasi.\n<\/p>\n
v.Mr. G. Sudhankaran,
\nS\/o. Mr. A. Gurusilonmani,
\n26, Chairman A.R.Arunachalam Road,
\nSivakasi.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. The property attached by the second respondent is the property
\nmortgaged, by the third respondent in both the writ petitions, to the
\npetitioner, to secure the financial assistance availed by them. The loan
\nadvanced is to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000\/- (Rupees One Crore only).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. The case of the petitioner is, that how the financial assistance
\nwas used, by its member was not its concern, as the loan advanced was duly
\nsecured, after due verification of the mortgaged properties. The Respondent No.3
\nin both the writ petitions were Directors of M\/s. Swamiji Mills Ltd.,
\nAnaikottam, Sivakasi, which defaulted in payment of huge sum of employees
\nprovident fund.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. The proceedings under Section 7-A<\/a>\/14-B<\/a> of the Act, was initiated
\nagainst M\/s. Swamiji Mills Ltd., Anaikottam, Sivakasi, and an order was passed
\nagainst the said Company. The certificate for recovery, was thereafter, issued
\nto the Recovery Officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. The Recovery Officer, in order to recover the amount, has ordered
\nthe attachment of individual property of Respondent No.3 in both the writ
\npetitions, being the Directors of the Company.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. The case of the petitioner is, that Respondent No.3 are not
\n“Employers” as defined under Section 2(e)<\/a> of the Act, being distinct and
\ndifferent from that of the Company, and therefore, their property could not be
\nattached, for recovery of amount from M\/s. Swamiji Mills Limited,  Anaikottam,
\nSivakasi. The petitioner, on coming to know about the attachment of the property
\nmortgaged to the petitioner, wrote to the Enforcement Office on 05.01.2006, and
\nto Respondent No.2 on 31.01.2006, requesting them to withdraw the attachment.
\nThe request of the petitioner was refused, by stating that the Recovery Officer
\nhad the jurisdiction under Section 8-B<\/a> of the Act, to attach the personal
\nproperties of the Directors \/ Establishment, and that under Section 11(2)<\/a> of the
\nAct, the provident fund dues have priority over the other dues.  Aggrieved over
\nby the action of the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court, by
\nfiling these two writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. These writ petitions are opposed by the respondents, on the
\nground that the Respondent No.3 in both the writ petitions are the Directors of
\nM\/s.  Swamiji Mills Limited,  Anaikottam, Sivakasi, and therefore, are liable to
\npay the contribution of Provident Fund and Damages imposed under section 8-B<\/a> of
\nthe Act, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“8-B. Issue of Certificate to the Recovery Officer:-
\n\t(1) Where any amount is in arrear under Section 8<\/a>, the authorised officer
\nmay issue, to the Recovery Officer, a certificate under his signature specifying
\nthe amount of arrears and the Recovery Officer, on receipt of such certificate,
\nshall proceed to recover the amount specified therein from the establishment or,
\nas the case may be, the employer by one or more of the modes mentioned below :-\n<\/p>\n
(a) attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property of the
\nestablishment or, as the case may be, the employer;\n<\/p>\n
(b)arrest of the employer and his detention in prison;\n<\/p>\n
(c)appointing a receiver for the management of the movable or immovable
\nproperties of the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer;
\n\tProvided that the attachment and sale of any property under this section
\nshall first be effected against the properties of the establishment and where
\nsuch attachment and sale is insufficient for recovering the whole of the amount
\nof arrears specified in the certificate, the Recovery Officer may take such
\nproceedings against the property of the employer for recovery of the whole or
\nany part of such arrears.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) The authorised officer may issue a certificate under sub-section (1),
\nnotwithstanding that proceedings for recovery of the arrears by any other mode
\nhave been taken.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. It is also the stand of the respondents, that in view of the
\nJudgment of the Calcutta High Court in BINOD KUMAR BIYALA ..VS.. REGIMAL
\nPROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, WEST BENGAL (2001 (I) L.L.J. 305), the Director of
\na Company is liable to pay the contribution, and therefore, the attachment of a
\nproperty of the Director cannot be questioned.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. In support of this contention, reliance is placed by the learned
\ncounsel for respondents on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the
\ncase of MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ..VS.. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT
\nFUND COMMISSIONER (2009 (10) S.C.C. 123), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
\nbeen pleased to lay down as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“65. We shall now deal with the last argument of the learned Senior
\nCounsel for the appellant Bank that the interest payable in terms of Section 7-Q<\/a>
\nand damages imposed under Section 14-B<\/a> of the Act cannot be treated as first
\ncharge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts
\nwithin the meaning of Section 11(2)<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
\t66. Section 11<\/a> gives statutory priority to the amount due from the
\nemployer vis-.-vis all other debts. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 11<\/a>
\nis applicable to cases where an employer is adjudicated insolvent or, being a
\ncompany, an order of its winding up is made. In that situation, the amount due
\nfrom the employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or the
\nInsurance Scheme applies in respect of any contribution payable to the Fund or,
\nas the case may be, the Insurance Fund, damages recoverable under Section 14-B<\/a>,
\naccumulations required to be transferred under Section 15(2)<\/a> or any other
\ncharges payable by him under any other provision of this Act or of any provision
\nof the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme. Clause (b) is applicable to cases where
\nthe amount is due from the employer in relation to exempted establishment in
\nrespect of any contribution to the provident fund or any insurance fund insofar
\nit relates to exempted employees under the rules of provident fund or any
\ninsurance fund, any contribution payable by him towards the Pension Fund under
\nSection 17(6)<\/a>, damages recoverable under Section 14-B<\/a> or any charges payable by
\nhim to the appropriate Government under the Act or under any of the conditions
\nspecified in Section 17<\/a>. This sub-section then lays down that such amount shall
\nbe paid in priority to all other debts in the distribution of the property of
\nthe insolvent or the assets of the company being wound up. Sub-section (2) lays
\ndown that any amount due from the employer whether in respect of the employees’
\ncontribution deducted from the wages of the employee or the employer’s
\ncontribution shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the
\nestablishment, and shall be paid in priority to all other debts.\n<\/p>\n
\t67. The expression “any amount due from an employer” appearing in sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 11<\/a> has to be interpreted keeping in view the object of
\nthe Act and other provisions contained therein including sub-section (1) of
\nSection 11<\/a> and Sections 7-A<\/a>, 7-Q<\/a>, 14-B<\/a> and 15(2)<\/a> which provide for determination
\nof the dues payable by the employer, liability of the employer to pay interest
\nin case the payment of the amount due is delayed and also pay damages, if there
\nis default in making contribution to the Fund. If any amount payable by the
\nemployer becomes due and the same is not paid within the stipulated time, then
\nthe employer is required to pay interest in terms of the mandate of Section 7-Q<\/a>.
\nLikewise, default on the employer’s part to pay any contribution to the Fund can
\nvisit him with the consequence of levy of damages.\n<\/p>\n
\t68. As mentioned earlier, sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11<\/a> by
\nAmendment Act<\/a> 40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund
\ndues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and\/or
\nof the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was
\nconscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11<\/a> priority has been
\ngiven to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to
\nwhich any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under
\nSection 14-B<\/a> and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15(2)<\/a>.
\nThe legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily
\nresponsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17<\/a>. Therefore, there is no
\nplausible reason to give a restricted meaning to the expression “any amount due
\nfrom the employer” and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A<\/a> or
\nthe contribution payable under Section 8<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t69. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q<\/a> and
\ndamages leviable under Section 14<\/a> (sic Section 14-B<\/a>) are excluded from the ambit
\nof expression “any amount due from an employer”, every employer will
\nconveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and
\nresist the efforts of the authorities concerned to recover the dues as arrears
\nof land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the
\nestablishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate
\nthe object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in
\nSection 11(2)<\/a>. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the learned Senior
\nCounsel for the appellant Bank that the amount of interest payable under Section
\n7-Q<\/a> and damages leviable under Section 14-B<\/a> do not form part of the amount due
\nfrom an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2)<\/a> of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents, that “Occupier”, as disclosed in Form 5A, would also be liable, to
\npay the contribution, and therefore, the property of the petitioner could be
\nattracted and sold for recovery, as the charge of Department will be the first
\ncharge.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. In W.P.(MD)No.11546 of 2010 (R. BALACHANDRAN AND ANOTHER ..VS..
\nREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND THREE OTHERS) decided on 07.09.2011,
\nthis Court has been pleased to lay down, that the attachment of a property in
\nexercise of powers under Section 8-B<\/a> of the Act, is outside the scope of powers
\navailable with the Recovery Officer, for attachment of properties of the
\nDirectors, as the Company has a distinct, and separate identity from that of the
\nDirectors, and shareholders, and is deemed to be employer, and responsible for
\nthe payment of dues under the Act. The liability, therefore, cannot be fastened.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. It is also pertinent, to notice here, that the Respondent No.3
\nwas not shown to be the “Occupier”, under Form 5A of the Act<\/a>, and therefore,
\nwill not fall within the definition of “Employer”, who can be held responsible,
\nfor the dues under the Act. Even otherwise, there cannot be two employers i.e.,
\nthe Company and its Director.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents has no relevance, as the question involved in the writ petitions is
\nnot with regard to the priority of the charges on the property of the
\nestablishment, but as to whether there is any jurisdiction with the respondents,
\nto recover the amount from the property of the Director in exercise of powers
\nunder Section 8-B<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t19. As already observed above, at the sake of repetition, it may be
\nstated herein, that in view of the Judgment of this Court in  W.P.(MD)No.11546
\nof 2010 (R. BALACHANDRAN AND ANOTHER ..VS.. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
\nAND THREE OTHERS) decided on 07.09.2011, the impugned order cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t20. In this case, there is additional ground for setting aside the
\norder of attachment, for the reason, that even if, for the sake of argument, it
\nis taken, that the respondent had any right to recover, or initiate proceedings
\nqua the property of the Director by treating him to be the employer, in that
\nevent also, the property of the Director is being subject to charge, can be
\ntaken as charged property and not free from encumbrances, as provisions of
\nSection 11(2)<\/a> of the Act, would not be applicable,  as it deals with property of
\nthe employer, which is admittedly a Company, that too for the purposes of
\nsatisfaction of debts in distribution of properties of insolvent or assets of
\nthe  Company being wound up, which certainly would not include the property of a
\nDirector.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t21. The respondents also cannot take any advantage from the Judgment
\nof this Court in W.P.No.43577 of 2006 (CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..VS.. THE
\nAUTHORISED OFFICER AND TWO OTHERS) decided on 08.04.2011, as it has no
\napplication to the issue raised in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t22. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed,
\nthe impugned orders are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
Dpn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 8 September, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 08\/09\/2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Writ Petition No.6725 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.6726 of 2007 Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited, represented by its Manager, Manipal […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-25T07:31:01+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 8 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T07:31:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2362,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T07:31:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 8 September, 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":"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-25T07:31:01+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 8 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T07:31:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011"},"wordCount":2362,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011","name":"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T07:31:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-limited-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 8 September, 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\/257810","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=257810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257810\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}