TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant and further directed that the amount deposited, vide order dated 02.02.2023, be transmitted to the account of the respondent no.1 herein, i.e., the sole respondent before the High Court. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are narrated hereunder: 2.1. M/s Acropetal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Establishment') was covered under the ambit of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 For short, "PF Act" . The Establishment defaulted in payment of provident fund dues since July, 2013 and accordingly an enquiry was initiated under Section 7(A) of the PF Act. After due enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing to the Establishment, the Regional Provident Fund Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, the EPFO, vide letter dated 08.07.2015, addressed to the Axis Bank Ltd. referring to Section 11(2) of the PF Act and the judgment of this Court in the case of Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank vs. Assistant PF, Commissioner asked the Bank to remit a total amount of Rs.2,96,76,656/- as outstanding dues on 08.07.2015 by way of Demand Draft in favour of Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner payable at Bangalore out of the sale proceeds of the auction scheduled on 29.07.2015. 2.4. The Axis Bank in response, vide letter dated 20.07.2015, claimed first charge by referring to Section 35 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 In short "SARFAESI Act". Immediately, on 23.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Palya (hereinafter referred to as the 'Palya property') was being auctioned by State Bank of Travancore (now taken over by SBI). Accordingly, the EPFO communicated with EARC and State Bank of India to remit the outstanding dues, vide communication dated 23.04.2021. The EPFO demanded an amount of Rs.2,08,94,800/- from EARC as per priority under Section 11(2) of the PF Act. EARC filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, in which an interim order was granted staying the operation of order dated 15.06.2016 passed under Section 14(B) of the PF Act raising demand for an amount of Rs.1,30,52,221/-. In view of the same, the EPFO demanded EARC to remit the balance amount of Rs.78,42,579/- and also issued an order of attachment d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he High Court of Karnataka for the amount quantified under Section 14(B) of the PF Act amounting to Rs.1.3 crores approximately would fall in proportionate share of the Axis Bank. The recovery for the balance amount if ultimately EPFO succeeds before the High Court for its demand under Section 14(B) of the PF Act should be made from Axis Bank and not from the appellant. 5. The stand of the EPFO is that the High Court has rightly dismissed the petition of the appellant and, therefore, it is entitled to recover the balance amount of Rs.3,43,629/- and the amount of Rs.1.3 crores approximately quantified under Section 14(B) of the PF Act, as and when, the EPFO succeeds before the High Court. It is further submitted that the appellant had not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., EPFO would be entitled to recover anything from the Axis Bank only after its dues are fully satisfied. 10. It is an admitted position that Axis Bank by sale of Attibele property has realised an amount of Rs. 12 crores approximately whereas, appellant by sale of the other two properties namely Kammanahalli property and Palya property has realised only Rs.7 crores approximately. Further, it is an admitted position that the appellant had already paid Rs. 75 lakhs and had in fact given an undertaking that it will pay Rs.78,42,579/- in full and final discharge of its liability. According to the appellant, the balance payment of Rs.1,30,52,221/- approximately may be recovered from the Axis Bank. This is precisely the case canvassed before us....