VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2015 › High Court of Delhi

M/S. Hamar Television Network Pvt Ltd v. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner Delhi (North) Delhi

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
8 September 2015
Bench
Sunil Gaurauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 8597/2015

Judgment

ORDER %

08.09.2015 In the above-captionedfive petitions,impugnedorderof21®^ July, 2015 is assailed on identicalgrounds and so these five petitionswere heard togetherand are being disposedof by this common order. Vide W.P.(C)Nos.8597,8599,8601,8602&8607of2015 Page2 v_ impugned order, petitioners'appeals under The Employees'Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 stand dismissed as barred by time. The statutoryperiodto file the said appeal is 60 days and under the aforesaidenactment,the delay of another 60 days can be condoned whereasinthe instantmatters,the delayisofabout300 days. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitionerssubmits that the ManagingDirectorof petitioner-companieswas ill and laterinvolvedin a criminalcase and was in custodyso, the appealscouldnotbe filedwithin the period of 120 days and that the amount due has been already deposited and petitioners are ready to pay the interest on the delay occasioned. The prayer made is for waiver of the damages, which are said to be of ?1 crore approximatelyin these five matters. It is submitted that due to financialdifficulty,petitionersare unableto pay the dues and that on account of illness of the Managing Director of the petitioner-companies inadvertent lapses occurred, which deserve to be condoned. On behalf of respondent-i?eg/o«a/Fund Provident Commissioner, attention of this Court has been drawn to decisions of Division Bench of this Court in ShreeShyamkamalIndustriesPvt. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia & Ors. 2005 VII AD (Delhi) 155 and Saint Soldier Modern Senior Secondary School v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2014 SCC Online Del.4496 to submit that The Employees'ProvidentFunds and MiscellaneousProvisionsAct, 1952 is a specialenactmentand so Section 5 oftheLimitationActhas no application. Upon hearing, and on perusal of impugned order, material on recordand the decisionscited,I find thatthere is an absoluteprohibition to condone the delay beyond the period of 120 days. Applying the W.P.[C)Nos.8597,8599, 8601,8602&8607of2015 ~ pgge3 V. u dictum of decisions of Division Bencli of this Court in Shree Shyamkamal(Supra)and SaintSoldier(supra),to the facts ofthe instant cases, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegahtyor infirmity. Consequentially,thesepetitionsand applicationsare dismissed. (SUML GAUR) Judge SEPTEMBER 08,2015 vn W.P.(C]Nos.8597,8599,8601,8602 &8607of2015 Page4

Case details

Parties and counsel

$-5 to 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (i) + W.P.(C) 8597/2015 & CrLM.A.No.18678/2015 M/S. HAMAR TELEVISION NETWORK PVT LTD Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Singh, Advocate versus ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DELHI (NORTH)DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. R.C.Chawla, Standing Counsel for RPFC-Respondent with Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate (ii) + W.P.(C) 8599/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.18679/2015 M/S. NORTH EAST MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Singh, Advocate versus ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DELHI (NORTH)DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. R.C.Chawla, Standing Counsel for RPFC-Respondent with Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate (iii) + W.P.(C) 8601/2015 & CrLM.A.No.18682/2015 M/S. M3 MEDIA PVT LTD Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Singh, Advocate versus ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DELHI (NORTH)DELHI Respondent W.P.(C) Nos.8597,8599,8601,8602 &8607of2015 Page1 Through: Mr. R.C.Chawla,StandingCounsel for RPFC-Respondent with Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate (iv) + W.P.(C) 8602/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.18683/2015 M/S. POSITIVE RADIO PVT LTD Petitioner Through: Mr. RajeevSingh,Advocate versus ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DELHI (NORTH)DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. R.C.Chawla,StandingCounsel for RPFC-Respondentwith Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate (v) + W.P.(C) 8607/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.18699/2015 M/S. HY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD Petitioner Through: Mr. RajeevSingh,Advocate versus ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DELHI (NORTH)DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. R.C.Chawla,StandingCounsel for RPFC-Respondentwith Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.