Parameswari Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees Provident Fund Organization
WP/22690/2015 · 2026-02-18
K Sreenivasa Reddy
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 22382 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 22382 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010359032015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.22690 OF 2015
Between:
Parameswari Power Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director
...PETITIONER AND
The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Rep. by the Assistant Commissioner and another
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Y KOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO)
The Court made the following ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned order No.AP / RO / GNT / COMP-I / K-I / 57984 / 7A / 2014 / 165, dated 23.04.2014, passed by 1st respondent directing the petitioner company to pay the balance payable amount of Provident Fund
SRK, J WP No.22690 of 2015 2 Dues into the respective employees Provident Fund Account Heads through ECR.
2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo stating that the Managing Director of the petitioner company namely Mr. RVSRK Sharma died on 30.09.2025, as per the information furnished by his son- in-law. It is further stated that the petitioner company is a Private Limited Company and except Mr. RVSRK Sharma, no other Director is available to represent the company before this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, since the petitioner company is a Private Limited Company, there would obviously have been at least one Director.
4. Be that as it may, since the Director of the petitioner company has passed away and there are no instructions regarding the availability of any other Director, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no orders are necessary to be passed in the present Writ Petition.
5. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:19.02.2026 Nsr
SRK, J WP No.22690 of 2015 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Writ Petition No.22690 of 2015
Date:19.02.2026
Nsr