Sreelakshmi Cashew Company vs Recovery Officer, Kollam And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15372 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
         THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 13604 OF 2010
PETITIONER:

              SREELAKSHMI CASHEW COMPANY
              KUNNICODE, KOLLAM, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER, P.SUNDARAN.

              BY ADV SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN



RESPONDENTS:

     1        RECOVERY OFFICER,
              EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,, SUB REGIONAL
              OFFICE, ANEX MANNANIYYA COMPLEX, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-
              691001.

    *2        THE MANAGING PARTNER
              M/S.KESAV CASHEW COMPANY, SHANMUGHAVILASOM, KILIKOLLOOR,
              KOLLAM.


              (*R2 DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 28-11-2019 IN IA NO 1/19
              IN WP(C))

     3        ABDUL KARIM THE PROPRIETOR
              M/S.FOUSIA CASHEWS, MUNIR MANZIL, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM.

              BY ADV SRI.M.DINESH
                 ADV.SRI.V.V.SURESH
                 SR.G.P-RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.07.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) 13604/2010                      2



                                  JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P6 and P7 issued by the first

respondent. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay the amount

fastened on him since the amount sought to be recovered is the post liability

of respondents 2 and 3. The second respondent has already been deleted

from the party array, at the risk of the petitioner.

2. When the writ petition is taken up for consideration today, the

learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a Division Bench

of this Court in Annie Thomas v. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

2004 (3) KLT SN 3 (Case No.4) and in Ramesh Kumar S. v. The Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner & others [2009 (2) KLJ 131] in support of

the contentions of the petitioner.

Sri. V.V. Suresh, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits

that the first respondent would revisit the impugned orders in the light of the

decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the

submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent and agreed to

by the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the third respondent, this

writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider

the request of the petitioner in Ext.P5 in the light of the decisions referred to

above. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time,

the interim order passed by this Court on 23.4.2010 will continue. The first

respondent shall also hear the petitioner, respondent No.3 and any other

affected party before a decision is taken on Ext.P5.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1:A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF LEASE DATED 25.9.2005.

P2:A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 23.8.2006.

P3:A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.2.2009.

P4:A COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.2.2010.

P5:A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.3.2010.

P6:A COPY OF THE WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT DATED 26.3.2010.

P7:A COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 7.4.2010.

P8:A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.8.2007.

spc/