DELHI INTEGRATED MULTI MODAL TRANSIT SYSTEM LTD v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ANR
CWP/627/2018 · 2025-09-09
Kuldeep Tiwari
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 77904 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 77904 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CWP-627 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Delhi Integrated Multi
Regional Provident Fund Commission and another
CORAM:
Present:
KULDEEP TIWARI
1.
order dated 22.12. 03.01.2018 (Annexure P
2.
entire assessed amount has substantive survives for adjudication in the instant
3.
submits that However,
directed the petitioner to deposit 75% of the amount, within period of eight weeks. No.3, and 16.02.2018 627-2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit System Ltd. Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commission and another
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Mr. Ajay Monga, Advocate, for the petitioner (Through V.C.)
Mr. Rajesh Hood, Advocate, for the respondents.
****
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, challenge is thrown to the
order dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure P-2), and also the o 03.01.2018 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner entire assessed amount has already been deposite substantive survives for adjudication in the instant On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, initially the entire assessed amount However, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
directed the petitioner to deposit 75% of the amount, within period of eight weeks. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner approached respondent and accordingly, 25% of the amount 16.02.2018, which is yet to be recovered.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-627-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.09.2025 Transit System Ltd. ….Petitioner Regional Provident Fund Commission and another ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Ajay Monga, Advocate, for the petitioner (Through V.C.) Mr. Rajesh Hood, Advocate, Through the instant writ petition, challenge is thrown to the 2), and also the order dated 3), passed by respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the been deposited, therefore, nothing substantive survives for adjudication in the instant writ petition. earned counsel for respondent No.2 ssessed amount had been recovered. a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.01.2018,
directed the petitioner to deposit 75% of the amount, within period of In pursuance thereof, the petitioner approached respondent 25% of the amount was returned to it on
5
s Through the instant writ petition, challenge is thrown to the der dated the , therefore, nothing earned counsel for respondent No.2 recovered. .2018,
directed the petitioner to deposit 75% of the amount, within period of In pursuance thereof, the petitioner approached respondent on AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP-627
4.
hereinbelow:
5.
writ petition entire amount the remaining amount.
09.09.202 Ak Sharma
627-2018 (O&M) -2- The relevant part of the order (supra), is extracted hereinbelow:-
“Operation of orders dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure P2) and 03.01.2018 (Annexure P3) are payment of 75% by the department with reference to Annexures P2 and Petitioner is hereby directed to deposit 75% of demand within a period of 8 weeks from today. If the petition is allowed in that event petitioner is per annum on the deposited money of 75%.
Since the petitioner itself does not intend writ petition any further, the same is disposed of entire amount is not recovered, respondent No.3 the remaining amount.
.2025
Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable
The relevant part of the order (supra), is extracted Operation of orders dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure 03.01.2018 (Annexure P3) are stayed subject to petitioner in the respondent department with reference to Annexures P2 and P3. Petitioner is hereby directed to deposit 75% of demand of 8 weeks from today. If the petition is titioner is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the deposited money of 75%.
does not intend to press the instant
disposed of. However, in case the , respondent No.3 is at liberty to recover (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
Yes Yes/No
The relevant part of the order (supra), is extracted Operation of orders dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure stayed subject to petitioner in the respondent P3. Petitioner is hereby directed to deposit 75% of demand of 8 weeks from today. If the petition is entitled to interest @ 6% the instant the at liberty to recover AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document