Neeta Sawant 908-WP-13736-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13736 OF 2026 M s. Kalpesh Enterprises / ...Petitioner : Versus : Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization ...Respondent Mr. Pradhyuman M. Bhagat, for the Petitioner. Mr. Gunjan Chaubey, for the Respondent. CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 14 OCTOBER 2026. P.C.: 1) Petitioner is aggrieved by the prohibitory order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) on 19 August 2026. It appears that in appeal filed by the Petitioner-establishment before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Mumbai (CGIT) against order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 an interim order was passed on 11 August 2025 directing the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000 - and on that condition execution of Section 7A order / PAGE NO. 1 of 2 Wednesday, 14 October 2026 Neeta Sawant 908-WP-13736-2026.docx was stayed. It appears that there was some delay on the part of the Petitioner in depositing the amount of Rs.5,00,000 -. Petitioner / believes that delay in depositing the amount of Rs.5,00,000 - has / resulted in dismissal of the case. Accordingly, it has filed Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the case before the CGIT. The restoration application has been adjourned to 31 December 2026. In the meantime, the RPFC has proceeded to issue prohibitory order dated 19 August 2026. 2) Order dated 25 September 2026 records depositing of amount of Rs.5,00,000 - by the Petitioner. It thus clearly appears that / the interim stay granted vide order dated 11 August 2025 would revive and continue to operate on account of deposit of amount of Rs.5,00,000 - by the Petitioner. Therefore, the interim prohibitory / order dated 19 August 2026 deserves to be set aside. 3) The prohibitory order dated 19 August 2026 is accordingly set aside. The attached bank accounts of the Petitioner shall be de- freezed forthwith. 4) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Appeal pending before the CGIT. 5) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.] PAGE NO. 2 of 2 Wednesday, 14 October 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.10.14 17:08:49 +0530