9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Delhi High Court by the second Respondent shall also stand restored to the file of the Single Judge for disposal together with companion writ petition noted above. 8. Mr. Shantwanu Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second Respondent states that the writ petition which was filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP No. 6100 of 2017, shall be withdrawn before that High Court so as to enable the second Respondent to pursue the writ petition which has been filed before the Delhi High Court. 9. We request the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court to dispose of the pending writ petitions expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months consistent with the exigencies of work. 10. The appeal is according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
