After Pavankumar Bhimappa Bajanthri took oath as the chief justice of the Patna High Court on September 21, 2025, his Division Bench has delivered 24 judgements in Central Board of Trustees vs. The Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd., Ramashish Rawat vs. The State of Bihar, Shambhu Sharan Singh vs. Union of India, The State of Bihar vs. Md. Wasiqur Rahman, M/s Daksha Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company, Sai Engicon and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar, Tuliya Devi Vs. The State of Bihar, Lalan Prasad Rai vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., The State of Bihar vs. Ranjan Kumar, Rohit Kumar @ Rai Rohit Sharma vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Saurabh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Jain Associates vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company, M/s Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Anil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Viveka Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Rahmat Rozy vs. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Bh, Anjan Kumar Roy, vs. Smt. Mala Devi, Rohit Kumar vs. Anita Devi @ Anita Pandey, Shailendra Kumar vs. Girindra Kumar, Kumar Karunesh Kaithal vs. Seema Kaithal, Mohd Abul Kalam @ Md. Abdul Kalam, vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Ajeet Kumar Singh vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Akhil Bhartiya Vishwakarma Mahasabha Bihar vs. The Union of India and M/s Shubh Laxmi Tent House vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary.
Chief Justice Bajanthri's first judgement as Chief Justice
In Central Board of Trustees & Ors. vs. The Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. & Ors. (2005), High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 22, 2025, wherein, it concluded: ''...it is crystal clear that as and when payment of installments commenced there was no condition in so far as acceptance of payment in installment to the extent that installment of payment has been accepted subject to outcome of pending LPA No.27564 of 2019. In other words appellants have already implemented the orders of the learned Single Judge. Implementation of the order of learned Single Judge is not subject to outcome of LPA No.27564 of 2019 from the inception and the appellants cannot improve as on 17.09.2025. Accordingly, LPA stands disposed of. Pending IAs, if any stands disposed of." The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Bajanthri.
The High Court's website is not showing the record of LPA No.27564 of 2019. The record of the case is not available. Its fate is not known.
The appellants had assailed the order of Single Judge dated July 8, 2019. The matter was heard at length on the earlier occasion on July 31, 2025. Upon hearing the High Court had passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction, submitted that order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.07.2019 has been complied insofar as payment on behalf of BISCOMAUN. In this regard, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is hereby directed to file his personal affidavit insofar as receipt of the payments in the light of learned Single Judge order dated 08.07.2019. Whether such acceptance of payment of installments is it under process like accepting payment of installments on behalf of BISCOMAUN is subject to outcome of the present appeal or not? 2. Relist this matter on 21.08.2025.” In response to this order the fourth supplementary affidavit on behalf of the appellants was filed. Its relevant para reads: “8. That it is stated here that present status of payment of installments is that all 72 of payments (each installment of Rs.2539432.00 have already been received by the EPFO from the BISCOMAUN. That it is stated here that since the present appellant filed LPA against the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 passed in CWJC No.12393 of 2019 by the Hon’ble Single Judge, it is obvious that accepting payment of installments on behalf of the BISCOMAUN is subject to outcome of the present appeal.”
Before the Single Judge Bench of Justice Shivaji Pandey, a prayer was made by the BISCOMAUN for realization of the outstanding dues of Rs. 20 crores in 72 installments as it was submitted that the outstanding dues occurred on account of bad financial condition of the BISCOMAUN for a quite long period of time. Justice Pandey's judgement recorded: ''this Court accepts the proposal of the BISCOMAUN to make payment in 72 installments but, as per the stand of the E.P.F.O., the BISCOMAUN will submit Revolving Bank Guarantee for six months and they will also submit advance cheque of Rs. 20 crores and, in the event of failure to comply any of the conditions mentioned above or in the event the cheque, which is remitted to the E.P.F.O. get bounced, in that event, the Managing Director through Board will be sole responsible for legal action to be taken by the E.P.F.O.''
Justice Pandey's 7-page long judgement dated July 8, 2029 reads:''The BISCOMAUN will start making payment of installments to the E.P.F.O. within a period of one month from the date of withdrawal of attachment of the bank account. The E.P.F.O. will also withdraw the letter by which the E.P.F.O. has directed tenants of the BISCOMAUN for remittance of rent directly. Relief which has been granted will be available to the petitioner so long it carry out the direction of this Court without any default. In the event, the petitioner fails to comply the direction, the interim benefit given will be treated to have been withdrawn and the E.P.F.O. will be at liberty to take any legal action against the BISCOMAUN in accordance with law. The E.P.F.O. would withdraw the order of attachment within 48 hours of the pronouncement of this order. It is further directed that the BISCOMAUN, whenever it would receive application from its employees for payment of their E.P.F. amount, after proper verification/attestation, will remit the same to the E.P.F.O., in turn, the E.P.F.O., will release the money to the employee concerned proportionate to the amount of money deposited by the BISCOMAUN. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of."
No comments:
Post a Comment