INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is Indian Overseas Bank which is a Nationalised, Public Sector Bank. Being aggrieved by the orders of attachment dated 18.12.2017 and 20.02.2018, Annexures-A and B respectively, petitioner-Bank has preferred these writ petitions.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner-Bank. He submits that impugned attachment orders are passed by first and second respondent having regard to the fact that M/s. Nava Karnataka Steels Private Limited, having its factory at Bisalahaili, Ananthapur Road, Bellary District, is in default of the payment of provident fund contributions and other dues; that the petitioner-Bank is a creditor to M/s. Nava Karnataka Steels Private Limited, therefore, direction could not have been issued to petitioner-Bank to make payments in pursuance of attachment orders issued under Sec. 8F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the sake of brevity).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, when its customer viz., M/s. Nava Karnataka Steels Private Limited is due to the Bank, the liability to pay the provident fund dues of the customer by the petitioner-Bank, as per the orders of attachment at Annexures-AB, does not arise. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, as an objector, has filed objections on 8.11.2017, but without considering the said objections, impugned orders of attachment dated 18.12.2017 and 20.02.2018, at Annexures-A and B, have been passed. Therefore, he seeks interference at the hands of this Court.