1 2911 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2011 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2010 International Hometex Ltd. ...Appellant V/s. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. S.K. Talsania with Mr. Sanjay Udeshi and Mr. Vishal Talsania i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Appellant Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 17TH MARCH, 2011 P.C.:- This Letters Patent Appeal takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24th January, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 5330 of 2010. 2. By the said order, the prayer for ad-interim relief during the pendency of the Writ Petition came to be rejected on the ground that the 2 2911 petitioner had failed to comply with the earlier order of the Court to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- within four weeks from 21st July, 2010 in spite of sufficient indulgence shown to the appellant. The said Writ Petition No. 5330 of 2010 has been filed by the appellant / petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing the appellant / petitioner to deposit 40% of the amount calculated by the Department as payable by the appellant / petitioner towards Provident Fund dues. 3. The assessment of contribution was done by the Department and the total amount payable by the appellant / petitioner has been calculated at Rs.56,87,882/-. The assessment was done on 30th September, 2009. The appellant carried the matter in appeal against the ex parte order passed by the Department, in which appeal, the appellant / petitioner has been ordered to comply with the requirement of pre- deposit to the extent of 40% of the total payable amount calculated by the Department. As aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition to question that order essentially on the ground that the appellant / petitioner is financially not in sound condition and would not be able to fulfil the said direction of the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Single Judge, on 21st July, 2010, entertained the Writ Petition 3 2911 and also granted ad-interim relief on condition that the appellant / petitioner should at least deposit Rs.10,00,000/- within four weeks. The appellant / petitioner was unable to comply even with the said direction. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, by the order dated 24th January, 2011, declined to continue the ad-interim protection of the appellant / petitioner. 4. In the present appeal, the appellant, through counsel, submits that, as a matter of fact, the appellant had somehow made arrangement to pay the amount as ordered by the learned Single Judge, but the Pay Order could not be obtained from the bankers before the cut-off date provided by the learned Single Judge. There was delay of about one day, but the learned Single Judge declined to show any further indulgence. 5. Now, the appellant, through counsel, submits that the appellant, instead of Rs.10,00,000/-, would arrange to deposit up to Rs.15,00,000/- in the relevant account of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vashi, before 30th March, 2011, and, on compliance of this assurance, the appellant be given at least one opportunity to pursue their remedy of appeal against the ex parte order passed by the 4 2911 Department. The appellant has reiterated the argument, as was canvassed before the learned Single Judge that, due to financial inability, the appellant is not in a position to pay the 40% pre-deposit amount as ordered by the Appellate Tribunal, but assures, through counsel, that they would comply with such further direction/s to be passed by the Appellate Tribunal, if the appeal preferred by the appellant were to be restored to the file of the Appellate Tribunal. 6. In view of the above, the appeal can be, and is, disposed of on accepting the above assurances given on behalf of the appellant / petitioner. In our opinion, the Writ Petition itself will be worked out in terms of the arrangement agreed upon by the appellant, as the challenge in the Writ Petition is only to the pre-deposit order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondents, in all fairness, accepts that this Court may proceed to dispose of the Writ Petition itself in view of the above-mentioned terms. 7. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:- (a) The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24th January, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 5330 of 2010 is set aside. 5 2911 (b) The appellant shall deposit sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in the concerned account of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vashi, on or before 30th March, 2011. If this condition is complied with, the appeal preferred before the Appellate Tribunal by the appellant / petitioner will stand restored to the file to its original number before the Appellate Tribunal, to be proceeded further in accordance with law. (c) Writ Petition No. 5330 of 2010 is disposed of on the above terms. As a result, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 9th April, 2010 will stand modified to the above extent. It is made clear that, on failure to comply with the above assurance given by the appellant, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 9th April, 2010 shall stand revived. 8. In view of the above, accompanying Civil Application is also disposed of. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.