CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES versus M/S INDORE COMPOSITE PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1130 · Decided: 26-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
v.
M/S INDORE COMPOSITE PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 7240 of 2018)
JULY 26, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure – Dismissal of writ petition by
unreasoned order – Propriety of – Appellant issued summons to the
respondent for non-payment of the Provident Fund contribution in
the year 2005-2006 and ordered the respondent to pay inter alia
damages for the delayed payments – Respondent filed appeal, which
was allowed by Employees Provident Fund Tribunal – Appellant
filed writ petition, which was dismissed by Division Bench of the
High Court – On appeal, held: Division Bench dismissed the writ
petition cursorily without dealing with any of the issues arising in
the case as also the arguments urged by the parties in support of
their case – Only expression used by the Division Bench in disposing
of the writ petition is “on due consideration” – It is not clear as to
what was that due consideration which persuaded the Division
Bench to dispose of the writ petition – Courts need to pass reasoned
order in every case containing facts, issues arising in the case,
submissions urged by the parties, legal principles applicable to the
issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the
issues arising in the case – Division Bench failed to keep these
principles in mind, causing prejudice to the parties – Impugned
order set aside – Matter remanded to the Division Bench for deciding
the writ petition on merits – Employees Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – ss.7A, 7C, 7Q and 14B.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant cursorily without dealing with any of the
issues arising in the case as also the arguments urged by the
parties in support of their case. [Para 13] [1133-E]
1.2  Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial
mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal
and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning
  [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1130
1130
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1131
and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings
impugned in the writ petition deserve to be upheld or reversed,
while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of
legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult to sustain
such order of the Division Bench.  The only expression used by
the Division Bench is “on due consideration”. It is not clear as
to what was that due consideration which persuaded the Division
Bench to dispose of the writ petition because in the earlier paras
only facts are set out. Time and again, Supreme Court has
emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in
every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of
the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case,
the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles
applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of
the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the
counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. The Division
Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of
the writ petition. Such order has caused prejudice to the parties
because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one
party has won and other has lost. The case is remanded to the
Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ petition
afresh on merits in accordance with law.[Paras 14-16]
[1133-F-H ; 1134-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 7240
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W. P. No. 1046 of 2017.
Dushyant Parashar, Adv. for the Appellant.
Navin Prakash, Ms. Meetu Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
01.08.2017 passed by the High Court of  Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
Indore in Writ Petition No.1046 of 2017 whereby the Division Bench of
the  High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein
and affirmed the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No.214(8) of 2015.
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. M/S INDORE
COMPOSITE PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
3. The facts of the case lie in a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.