M/S. KUMAR UNDERTAKING Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of argument, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed some documents which have been taken on record and copy of the same supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner and with the consdent of counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner has been filed this writ petition on the following relief(s) :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present writ petition is being preferred by the Petitioner against the coercive and patently illegal action of Respondent No.1 Bank in placing an unlawful hold/restriction on the operation of the Petitioner's Bank Account No. 404321000014 on 24/07/2025, purportedly in compliance with a notice issued by Respondent No.2, i.e., the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Raipur, under Sec. 8F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, dtd. 23/07/2025, whereby Respondent No.2 has sought recovery of an amount of Rs.16,89,679.00 from the Petitioner's account, despite the said demand actually being raised against an entirely different and unrelated establishment, namely M/s Padmini Dhurve. The impugned notice dtd. 23/07/2025 issued under Sec. 8F by Respondent No.2, and the subsequent action of Respondent No.1 Bank dtd. 24/07/2025 in placing a hold on the Petitioner's bank account, constitute the direct cause of grievance in the present writ petition. Both actions are challenged herein on the grounds of being wholly without jurisdiction, factually misconceived, legally unsustainable, and undertaken in gross violation of principles of natural justice, as well as the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner submits that there exists no order or adjudication against it under the provisions of the EPF Act, nor has the Petitioner ever been put to notice of any default, demand, or recovery under the said Act. The impugned action has been initiated without issuing any notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing, and without any determination of liability, solely on the basis of an erroneous and unverified assumption that the Petitioner is liable for the dues of a third-party entity, with whom it has no legal or financial connection. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dtd. 23/07/2025 (Annexure P-4) issued by Respondent No.2, and the consequential action of placing a hold on Petitioner's Bank Account on 24/07/2025, which together constitute the order(s)/action(s) under challenge in the present petition.