Hdfc Bank Limited & Anr vs Regional Provident Fund ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1150 Cal

March 11, 2022
   ARDR
   (223)
                                       WPA 3555 of 2022
                                              +
                                       IA CAN 1 of 2022

                                 HDFC Bank Limited & anr.
                                            Vs.
                  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Howrah & Ors.

                 Mr. Soumya Majumder,
                 Mr. Paritosh Sinha,
                 Mr. Amitava Mitra,
                 Ms. Antara Chowdhury
                                                        ...for the petitioners.
                 Mr. D. N. Sharma,
                 Mr. Nilay Sengupta,
                 Mr. Sujit Banerjee,
                                                        ...for the applicants.
                 Mr. A. K.Gupta,
                                                      ...for the P.F.Authority.
                 Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv.,
                 Ms. Manju Bhuturia,
                 Mr. Shailendra Jain,
                 Mr. Kaushik Kejriwal,
                 Ms. Shivangi Thard,
                                               ...for the respondent no.6.

Re : IA CAN 1 of 2022

Affidavit of service filed by the applicant is taken

on record.

Upon consideration of the submission made by the

learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, CAN

1 of 2022 is allowed.

The cause title of the writ petition be amended

accordingly.

Petitioners are directed to serve a copy of this writ

petition along with all annexures thereto upon the added

respondents in course of this day.

Re : WPA 3555 of 2022

The primary challenge in this writ petition is

against the notices issued by the Provident Fund

authority to the petitioner bank declaring the bank as

"deemed defaulter" and suggesting coercive recovery

action against the Bank Manager under Sections 8B to

8G of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners and the

6th respondent that the law does not permit the Provident

Fund Authority to attach the Cash Credit Account of the

bank which is in fact an overdraft account. Learned

counsels have referred to several authorities including

the judgments in Canara Bank sia Section vs. Regional

Provident Fund reported in 1993 (5) Karnataka LJ 416,

K. M. Adam vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 1958 (1)

MLJ 34 and M/s. Formative Tex Fab vs. State of Gujrat

and 3 others of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court passed on

18th January, 20211, all of which say that the cash credit

account cannot be attached.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Provident Fund

authority submits that the matter was placed before the

NCLT and not being able to persuade the Tribunal, the

petitioner has come up before this Court with this

frivolous writ petition. Learned counsel has placed

reliance on the judgment in Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd.

through its Director vs. Additional Director General,

Directorate General of GST Intelligence reported in 2019

SCC (online) Punjab & Haryana 6015.

Upon consideration of the submissions made on

behalf of the parties, this Court is of the view that there

are several factual aspects which require to be dealt with

by way of affidavits and exchange of affidavits is

necessary for the purpose of effective adjudication of the

matter.

Accordingly, affidavit in opposition be filed within

three weeks from date. Affidavit in reply, if any, be filed

within a week thereafter.

Pending disposal of the writ petition, the notices

issued by the Provident Fund Authority dated 29 th

December, 2021 and 15th February, 2022 be stayed till

20th May, 2022 or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

The added respondents who are the employees of

the company submit that all their dues were being paid

by the 6th respondent until the cash credit account of the

6th respondent was attached by the Provident Fund

authority.

As the matter is subjudice before the NCLT, liberty

is granted to the 6th respondent to approach the NCLT for

redressal of its grievance.

Let the matter go out of list for the time being.

Liberty to mention.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)