BANK OF BARODA Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner-Bank has filed this petition under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad, restraining him from implementing the impugned notices at Exhibit-'C', 'E' and 'H' and for quashing further proceedings arising therefrom. The Petitioner-Bank has also sought for the direction that the notices at Exhibit-'C', 'E' and 'H' and the impugned action of the Respondent No. l, threatening to arrest and attach the properties are ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal.

(2.) This interim order was challenged by the Petitioner-Bank before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No. 1464 of 1992. By disposing of the said Special Leave Petition No. 1464 of 1992 on 16.10.1995, the Court observed on the basis of the statement made by the learned Solicitor General on 21.4.1992 that no coercive process of recovery would be undertaken against the Petitioner-Bank and the said order would remain operative during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. With this direction the said Special Leave Petition was disposed of. The Apex Court has directed that the writ petition would be decided expeditiously.

(3.) It is the case of the Petitioner-Bank that the Respondent No. 2-Company which is under liquidation, was inter alia, dealing with the manufacture of textiles. The Respondent No. 2 is a constituent of the Petitioner-Bank since several years and availed of various credit facilities for the purpose of its business. Since, Respondent No. 2-Company was indebted to the Petitioner-Bank for a huge amount, it was constrained to file Special Civil Suit No. 690 of 1987 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadiad, inter alia, praying for recovery of a sum of Rs. 203.35 Lacs on 11.12.1987. In the said suit, the Petitioner had sought interim relief. The learned Trial Judge, by his judgment and order dated 05.11.1988, passed interim order permitting the Respondent No. 2-Company to do the job work provided it fulfilled the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. Since, the Respondent No. 2-Company was permitted to carry out the job work only with a view to help the employees to earn their livelihood, the Petitioner-Bank had, inter alia, agreed to permit Respondent No. 2 to operate a separate account in the Cambey Branch of the Petitioner Bank for doing the transactions of the proposed job work. The said account was on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order passed by the Civil Court.