Anil Govind Ganu vs Innovative Technomics Private Ltd. And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 22817 Bom

Bombay High Court

Anil Govind Ganu vs Innovative Technomics Private Ltd. And ... on 6 August, 2024

Gayatri Shimpi                                                                 101-WP-160-2024.docx



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         WRIT PETITION NO.160 OF 2024


Anil Govind Ganu                                                      ....Petitioner
      V/s.
Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.                              ....Respondents

                                    WITH
                         WRIT PETITION NO.161 OF 2024

Ashwini Anil Ganu                        ....Petitioner
     V/s.
Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ....Respondents
 ________________________________________________

Mr. Kiran S. Bapat, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Gauvav S. Gawande & Mr.
J. M. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Prashant P. Kshirsagar a/w Mr. Aniruddha M. Sanap i/b Sarvadnya
Legal Associates, for the Respondents.
________________________________________________
_
                                       CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                         Date     : 6 AUGUST 2024.
P.C. :


1)        The arguments in the Petitions were heard, and the Judgment was

reserved on 31 July 2024 . Today, the Petitions are listed for directions with a view to seek clarifications from the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the following issues :-

(i) whether an entry reflected in the balance-sheet of a company can be construed as existence of contract / agreement for payment of gratuity within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,

___Page No.1 of 2___ 6 August 2024

Gayatri Shimpi 101-WP-160-2024.docx

(ii) Section 4A (1 ) and (2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act recognies two classes of employers viz,

(i) who subscribe to LIC Group Gratuity Scheme and

(ii) who establish approved gratuity fund within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Rule 102 of the Income Tax Rules does not permit director of company from being admitted as member of the approved gratuity fund if he has more than 5% voting power. Therefore whether Petitioners, who each had 50% voting power in respect of the first Respondent - Company, can be held to be entitled for gratuity.

2) Both the learned counsel to address the Court on the above queries. List the Petition for directions on 8 August 2024.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

GAYATRI RAJENDRA RAJENDRA SHIMPI SHIMPI Date:

2024.08.07 10:01:38 +0530

___Page No.2 of 2___ 6 August 2024