2021 (3) TMI 1438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Delhi. The Delhi High Court, affirming the order of the Single Judge, held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the impugned order was passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal situated in Delhi. However, the court affirmed the finding of the Single Judge on forum non convenience. The basis of this finding is that the Petitioner is situated in Faridabad in Haryana and the proceedings under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 - "EPF Act" were initiated in that State. The only reason for invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court was on account of the fact that the EPFAT was situated in Delhi. Thus, the dismissal of the writ petition was upheld. 3. The f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2010 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 592 of 2012 deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction. Subsequently, it appears that Writ Petition (Civil) No. 592 of 2012 was adjourned sine die by the Single Judge till the disposal of ATA No. 07(16) 2013 by the EPFAT. On 18 April 2016, the EPFAT Delhi dismissed the appeal. In order to challenge the order of the EPFAT, the Appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5497 of 2016. The Single Judge by an order dated 9 September 2016, dismissed the writ petition holding that the Delhi High Court was not a convenient forum to determine the lis between the parties. The order of the Single Judge has been confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench. 5. In the facts of the present case, as they emerged before ....