Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10862 (UTT)

HMT WATCHES LIMITED v. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

WPMS/2591/2025 · 2025-09-10

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:8031 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 2590 of 2025 With WPMS No. 2591 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, both the petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 2590 of 2025 alone are being considered. 4. Petitioner has challenged notice of demand issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Haldwani, whereby he was asked to deposit a sum of ₹68,27,379/- towards dues of Deposit Linked Insurance Fund Contribution and dues of Deposit Linked Insurance Administrative Charges. 5. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submits that notice of demand has been issued pursuant to the order passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in proceedings under Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on 19.08.2011; petitioner has challenged said order in WPMS No. 2391 of 2011, which is still pending. He, therefore, submits that writ petition is ill advised and the proper course for the 2025:UHC:8031 petitioner was to move application for protection in the pending writ petition. 6. This Court finds substance in the said submission. Since the order impugned in this writ petition is issued pursuant to the earlier order passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, which is under challenge in a separate petition, therefore, proper remedy for the petitioner would be to claim interim relief in that pending writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to petitioner to move appropriate application in the pending writ petitions (WPMS No. 2390 of 2011 and WPMS No. 2391 of 2011). (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 10.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f0747700 5aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2C E3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FB B0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.11 07:47:10 -07'00' 2025:UHC:8031