Bombay High Court

SAHAKAR MITRA SHRI CHANDRAKANT HARI BADE SIR URBAN COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NASHIK

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to comply with the order to deposit the required amount under Section 7-O of the EPF Act.

Summary

The petitioner, an urban cooperative credit society, filed a writ petition challenging an order that required it to deposit 75% of a statutory amount under Section 7-O of the Employees' Provident Funds (EPF) Act. The court noted that the petitioner had not complied with the order and had made no request indicating willingness to do so. Consequently, the court found no basis to entertain the petition. The petition was therefore dismissed. The decision underscores the necessity of complying with statutory deposit requirements before seeking judicial relief.

Issues considered

Did the petitioner comply with the order to deposit 75% of the amount under Section 7-O of the EPF Act?
Should the writ petition be entertained in view of the petitioner’s non‑compliance?

Legislation cited

Employees' Provident Funds Act — s. 7-O

Subjects

EPF Act
Section 7-O
statutory compliance
writ petition
dismissal
labour law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41461



                                                                    66 WP9340.2013
                                                -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             66 WRIT PETITION NO. 9340 OF 2013

                 SAHAKAR MITRA SHRI CHANDRAKANT HARI BADE SIR
                            URBAN COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.
                                            VERSUS
               THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NASHIK
                                               ...
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Prakash Patil
              Advocate for Respondent : Mr. N R Choudhary
                                               ...


                                         CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                               Date : 07.09.2026

              PER COURT :-

              1.         The learned counsel for the Respondent has adverted

              attention of this court to the Order dated 17.12.2013, which

              reads as under:

                         “2. In case the counsel for petitioner receives
                         instruction from the petitioner that the petitioner is
                         ready to deposit 75% amount as the statutory
                         provision under Section 7-O of the EPF Act, or in case
                         the petitioner is willing to deposit more than 50%
                         amount, liberty to the petitioner to move the petition
                         for urgent orders.”


              2.         When    confronted     with   the   compliance,   learned

              counsel for the Petitioner has fairly conceded that the same is not
                                                    66 WP9340.2013
                               -2-

complied with nor any request in that regard is made indicating

the willingness to comply same for considerable period.


3.         In view of the noted non-compliance, the Writ Petition

does not require consideration and the same stands dismissed.




                                     (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

marathe

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…