MAHENDRA JAIN Vs. ASSTT PROVIDENT FUND COMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are interconnected and, therefore, with the consent of parties were analogously heard. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of these matters are as under:--

(2.) On 1.12.2011, the petitioner received a letter dated 1.12.2011, wherein respondent No. 1 had claimed that the machinery belonging to respondent No. 3 company were under attachment of respondent No. 1 since 2006 and, therefore, dealing with these machineries by present petitioner is completely illegal and impermissible. It is further stated in the letter that respondent No. 1 came to know that the machineries have been purchased by the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner is liable to deposit entire sale proceed received by the petitioner out of sale of machineries with respondent No. 1.

(3.) In response to letter dated 1.12.2011 (Annexure-D), the petitioner replied on 9.12.2011 stating that the said letter is illegal and there was nothing on movables/machineries/factory premises by way of notice or notice board to show any kind of attachment by respondent No. 1. Since taking possession pursuant to sale letter w.e.f. December, 2009 till 1st December, 2011, no officer/agent of respondent No. 1 had ever visited the factory premises nor any claim was made. Respondent No. 1, in turn, directed the petitioner to remain present in the office. This communication dated 12.1.2012 is Annexure-F. The petitioner by letter dated 14.1.2012 (Annexure-G) denied the claim.