What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no error in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in passing the interim order. Therefore, the appeal against the interim order was dismissed.

The appellant filed a writ appeal against an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had stayed further proceedings subject to the petitioner depositing a specific sum.

What were the issues?

Whether the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in granting interim relief was erroneous and warranted interference by the appellate court.

M/S. Metcut Toolings (P) Ltd vs The Regional Provident Fund… | Karnataka High Court 2018

W.A. No.100279/2018 (L-PF) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

WRIT APPEAL No.100279/2018 (L-PF)

BETWEEN :

M/S. METCUT TOOLINGS (P) LTD. PLOT NO.18-23, KIAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI SUDHIR SHETTY

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. KUSHAL V BOLMAL, ADV.)

AND:

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BEHIND INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.

….RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO SET-ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT IN WP NO.104103/2018 DATED 13.07.2018 BY GRANTING THE INTERIM PRAYERS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

W.A. No.100279/2018 (L-PF) -2-

THIS APPEAL COMING FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G. RAMESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

This writ appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 13.07.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No.104103/2018 (L-PF).

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. The impugned order dated 13.07.2018 reads as follows: “Heard. Issue notice to the respondent. Stay of further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.11,55,876/- before the respondent-authority, within a period of six weeks, failing which the interim order shall stand vacated automatically.”

In our opinion, on the facts of the case, the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous to

W.A. No.100279/2018 (L-PF) -3- warrant interference in appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2018 filed for interim stay also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

JTR

M/S. METCUT TOOLINGS (P) LTD., vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I,

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments