Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Regional Provident Fund ... vs Hdfc Bank Limited & Ors on 31 October, 2022
Item No.2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 31.10.2022
DELIVERED ON:31.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
M.A.T No.1388 of 2022
[I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
[I.A. No.CAN 2 of 2022
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II, Howrah & Ors.
Vs.
HDFC Bank Limited & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta ..... for the appellants.
Mr. Amitava Mitra,
Ms. Antara Choudhury ...... for the respondent nos.1 & 2.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
Re:. I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022
1. This is an application praying for condonation of delay of
137 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. Having heard Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, learned advocate
appearing for the applicants/appellants and Mr. Amitava Mitra,
learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, we
are of the considered view that sufficient cause has been shown
for belated presentation of the appeal.
3. Accordingly the application is allowed.
Re : M.A.T. 1388 of 2022
4. This intra-Court appeal is directed against an interim
order dated 11th March, 2022 passed in W.P.A. 3555 of 2022 and
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022. By the said order, the learned Single
Bench has kept in abeyance the recovery proceedings initiated by
the appellants/organisation against the respondents.
5. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single
Bench and found that reasons have been assigned as to why the
respondents/writ petitioners are entitled for interim
protection. To be noted that the directions issued for filing of
the affidavit in opposition has been complied with by the
appellants/organisation and the respondents/writ petitioners
have also filed a reply in compliance with the direction issued
by the learned Single Bench.
6. In our considered view, no grounds have been made out by
the appellants/organisation to interfere with the exercise of
discretion by the learned Single Bench and staying recovery
proceedings till the matter is being heard.
7. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application (I.A. No.
CAN 2 of 2022) stand dismissed.
8. We grant liberty to the learned advocate for the appellants
to mention before the learned Single Bench for early listing of
the writ petition since it is submitted that the recovery of
more than Rs. 2 crores has been stalled on account of pendency
of the matter.
9. However, we make it clear that we have not gone into the
merits of the matter.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance
of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J)
I agree,
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)
