Delhi High Court
Indian Bank And Anr vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 1 February, 2019
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 01.02.2019
+ W.P.(C) 1580/2013 & CM No.2970/2013 (for stay)
INDIAN BANK AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.S.R. Sharma, Adv.
versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J
1. Vide the present petition, the two petitioners/Indian Bank and
its Chief Manager Shri N.K. Sharma, seek quashing of the order dated
27th February, 2013 as also the consequential show cause notice dated
28th February, 2013 issued by the respondent no.2/Recovery Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Faridabad. Vide the
impugned notice dated 27th February, 2013, the petitioner no.2 was
asked to show cause as to why he should not be arrested for his failure
to pay the sum of Rs.95,11,346/- towards the outstanding provident
fund dues of respondent no.3 in terms of the recovery notice dated 4th
January, 2006.
2. The admitted case of the parties is that the respondent no.3/
M/s Usha India Limited had been declared as a "defaulter" under the
provisions of Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions
Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") whereafter vide its order
dated 27th February, 2013, the respondent no.2/Recovery Officer had
declared the petitioner/Bank as a "deemed defaulter" in accordance
with the provisions of Section 8-F of the Act.
3. The present petition impugning the aforesaid show cause
notices was filed on the premise that the petitioner/Bank being only a
secured creditor of the respondent no.3, had after selling the
respondent no.3's property at 12/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad,
Haryana mortgaged with it had after adjusting its recoverable dues,
deposited the entire surplus amount with the Debt Recovery Tribunal
No.I (hereinafter referred to as "DRT-I") and could, therefore, not be
directed to pay the outstanding dues of the respondent no.3 or held to
be a deemed defaulter.
4. During the pendency of the present petition, it transpired that
after the sale of the respondent no.3's aforesaid property, the
petitioner had deposited the surplus amount of Rs.15 crores with the
Debt Recovery Tribunal. In these circumstances, this Court vide its
order dated 18th January, 2017, after noticing the fact that a sum of
Rs.89,03,375/- was still payable by the respondent no.3 to the
respondent no.1 directed the DRT-I to transfer a sum of
Rs.89,03,375/- to the Registrar General of this Court within a period
of four weeks. The amount so deposited with the Registrar General
of this Court was thereafter released in favour of the respondent no.1
pursuant to this court's order dated 15th September, 2017.
5. At this stage, it may also be noted that even though the surplus
amount after the sale of respondent no.3's mortgaged property, stands
deposited by the petitioner with the DRT-I, the said sale was not
confirmed on account of a challenge thereto by the respondent no.3
before the DRT which challenge, I am informed, now stands
dismissed in default.
6. Vide order dated 19th January, 2018, this Court after noticing
the fact that respondent no.1 had already received the major portion of
the amount as claimed vide its recovery notice dated 04.01.2006
directed the said respondent to file an affidavit pointing out the
deficiency, if any, in the amount recovered by it from the petitioner in
respect of the impugned show cause notice. Pursuant to the said
order, the respondent no.1 filed an additional affidavit before this
Court on 21st August, 2018, stating therein that a balance sum of
Rs.1,34,176/- still remained payable to it in respect of the Recovery
Certificate dated 4th January, 2006 based on which the impugned
show cause notices had been issued to the petitioners. At this stage,
Ms. Sidhu, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 states that after
the filing of the present petition, respondent no.3 has been found to
pay further sums of Rs.5,73,12,517/- and Rs.3,85,40,084/- having
been assessed as penal damages and interest under Sections 14B and
7Q of the Act respectively vide orders dated 22nd May, 2018. She,
however, fairly states that in so far as the cause of action in the
present writ petition is concerned, the only outstanding amount
recoverable by the respondent no.1 from respondent no.3 is
Rs.1,34,176/-. She further states that in so far as the other amounts as
referred to hereinabove arising pursuant to the orders dated 22nd May,
2018 are concerned, the respondent no.1 will take appropriate action
to recover the same as per law.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the
petitioner/Bank having received its dues, has no objection of any kind
if this Court directs the DRT to release a further sum of Rs.1,34,176/-
in favour of the respondent no.1 from the surplus amount lying with
it, as had been earlier directed by this Court vide its orders dated 18th
January, 2017 and 13th September, 2017.
8. In view of the facts noted hereinabove it is evident that the
respondent no.1 has already received the major portion of its dues
recoverable from the respondent no.3 pursuant to the Recovery
Certificate dated 4th January, 2006 based on which the impugned
notices were issued to the petitioner and therefore in the facts of the
present case, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the DRT to
release the remaining outstanding amount of Rs.1,34,176/- also in
favour of the respondent no.1.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 concedes that
upon receipt of the balance amount of Rs.1,34,176/-, nothing further
will survive for adjudication qua the recovery certificate dated 4th
January, 2006 based on which the impugned show cause notices had
been issued. In view of the aforesaid stand of respondent nos.1 & 2,
the DRT-I is directed to release a sum of Rs. 1,34,176/- to the
respondent no.1 from the surplus amount as deposited by the
petitioner/Bank after the sale of respondent no.3's property referred to
hereinabove.
10. It is further directed that if for any reason whatsoever, the
surplus amount is returned back to the petitioner before the further
sum of Rs. 1,34,176/- as directed is paid to respondent no.1 by the
DRT, the petitioner will be responsible for payment of the said
amount of Rs.1,34,176/- to the respondent no.1. As a result of the
direction to the DRT-I to release the balance amount of Rs.1,34,176/-
to the respondent no.1, nothing further survives for adjudication and
upon payment of the sum of Rs.1,34,176/- by the DRT or the
petitioner, as the case may be, the impugned notices dated 27 th
February, 2013 & 28th February, 2013 will be treated as withdrawn.
11. Needless to state that it will be open for the respondent no.1 to
take action as per law, qua any other amounts stated to be recoverable
from the respondent no.3 pursuant to the assessment order dated 22nd
May, 2018. It is also made clear that the direction to release the
aforesaid amount of Rs.1,34,176/- towards the satisfaction of the
recovery notice dated 4th January, 2006 by this Court will remain
subject to the outcome of any proceedings initiated by the respondent
no.3 to challenge, if any, the recovery notice dated 4th January, 2006..
12. The writ petition along with pending application, is disposed of
in the aforesaid terms.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 01, 2019/aa
