1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2281 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5546 OF 2007 Plazma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. And others ..Applicants. Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organization and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Chawak and Mr. Sandesh Shukla i/b M/s. Legasis Partners for the Applicants. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No.4. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 17th December, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Civil Application has been taken out for an appropriate direction to the First and Second Respondents to issue a no objection certificate to the MIDC for the transfer of immovable property that has been purchased by the Applicants in proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( “the 2 Securitization Act”) by the Fourth Respondent. 2. The Fourth Respondent had auctioned the property, being Plot No.10-19(3) together with the built up shed situated thereon belonging to Mhaskar Press Metal Components Private Limited, on 16th March, 2006. The sale took place under the provisions of the Securitization Act. The Applicants made payment of the full consideration to the Fourth Respondent and the sale certificate was issued on 8th December, 2006. The main question which arises in the Writ Petition relates to the liability of the Applicants to pay the dues of the Provident Fund authorities in respect of the P.F. dues when the undertaking was conducted by the previous owner. According to the Provident Fund authorities the terms of the sale would indicate that the Applicants will be liable. A notice under Section 8-F of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to the Fourth Respondent bank inter alia on 11th August, 2005. At this stage, the Applicants seek a 3 direction to the Provident Fund authorities to issue their no objection to the MIDC for the transfer of the property in the name of the Applicants. Counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that at this stage the Applicants without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the Writ Petition are ready and willing to furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalized bank to secure the dues of the Provident Fund authorities. Counsel appearing for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner states that the dues of the Provident Fund authorities are in the amount of Rs.19,00,342/-. Accordingly, it has been stated on behalf of the Applicants that a bank guarantee of the nationalized bank in the aforesaid amount shall be furnished in favour of the Second Respondent, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune and that the bank guarantee shall be kept alive during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court. Since the Applicants have agreed to secure the dues on account of the Provident Fund by furnishing a bank guarantee and by undertaking to keep it alive, there is no reason why the Provident Fund 4 authorities should not be directed to furnish their no objection in terms of the relief that has been sought in prayer clause (a) of the Civil Application. There shall be an order in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Civil Application subject to the condition that a no objection shall be furnished by the First and Second Respondents within a period of four weeks of a bank guarantee in terms of the aforesaid directions being furnished to the satisfaction of the Second Respondent. 3. During the course of the hearing it was urged on behalf of the Applicants that the undertaking of Mhaskar Press Metal Components Pvt. Ltd. Came to be closed some time in 2002 and in order to buttress this statement reliance was sought to be placed on a letter addressed by Poona Industrial Workers Union on 2nd March, 2003 to the Inspector of Police, MIDC, Bhosari with a copy to the Petitioner and the Fourth Respondent. It has been urged on behalf of the Applicants that if the dues as on the date of the closure are recomputed 5 by the Provident Fund authorities the amount which is found due and owing would be substantially less than what has been demanded and in that case the Applicants may without prejudice to their contention in the Petition consider resolving the entire dispute on an amicable basis so as to obviate any litigation or cloud on their title in that regard. The request made on behalf of the Applicants for recomputation of the dues is fair. The Second Respondent is accordingly directed to recompute the dues of Mhaskar Press Metal Components Pvt. Ltd. as on the date of the closure after notice to the Applicants and to arrive at a final determination preferably by 16th January, 2009. The Applicants shall appear before the Second Respondent for directions on 22nd December, 2008 in order that modalities can be fixed for carrying out the determination. It is clarified that this Court has had no occasion to determine the date with effect from which the alleged closure of the undertaking took place. That is entirely a matter which shall be decided on the basis of the documentary material on the record by the Second 6 Respondent. Upon a determination being made by the Second Respondent, it would be open to the Applicants to move this Hon'ble Court for a modification of the order in relation to the quantum of the bank guarantee and/or for a final disposal of the proceedings. 4. A copy of the order that would be passed by the Second Respondent shall be placed on the record of these proceedings on or before 19th January, 2009. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the Provident Fund authorities from taking recourse to their rights under Section 8-F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in respect of the notices which have already been issued to the Fourth Respondent. All the rights and contentions of the Fourth Respondent are kept open in that regard. The Civil Application is disposed of *****