Maiyas Beverages And Foods Private Limited Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner And Recovery Officer (Karnataka High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the EPF CP-2 “Warrant of Attachment of Movable Property” dated 22 July 2025 and to restrain the respondent from taking coercive action until the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal issued its final judgment. The petitioner also challenged the proceedings arising from an order passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Court observed that the petitioner, under the guise of the annexures placed on record, was effectively challenging the 7A order through the writ petition. The Court emphasized that an alternative statutory remedy is available under Section 7-I of the Act, which provides for an appellate process against a 7A order. It reiterated that Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to bypass statutory procedures, particularly when the statute itself prescribes a specific mechanism for enforcing rights or liabilities.
The Court noted that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked unless statutory remedies are inadequate to address an extraordinary situation. Since such circumstances were not established in this case, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226.
