DIOCESAN SOCIETY OF EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FR. JESUS NAZARETH RODRIGUES vs REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER -I AND ANR — HCBM50021302026

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM050021302026

Next Hearing

09th June 2026

Filing Number

WP/1560/2026

Filing Date

09-06-2026

Judge

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NEELA GOKHALE

Coram

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NEELA GOKHALE

Bench Type

Single

Category

LABOUR MATTERS SINGLE BENCH ( 65 )

Sub-Category

PROVIDENT FUND ( 8 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL SECTION

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act Section 7A

Petitioner(s)

DIOCESAN SOCIETY OF EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FR. JESUS NAZARETH RODRIGUES

Adv. BANGERA SMRATI RAJENDRANATH

Respondent(s)

REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER -I AND ANR

THE MANAGER BANK OF INDIA

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NEELA GOKHALE

09-06-2026

FOR ADMISSION - FIRST ON BOARD

Orders

09-06-2026
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NEELA GOKHALE

Case Summary: The Diocesan Society of Education's writ petition challenging a Regional PF Commissioner's order directing payment of Rs. 1,84,28,498 under the Employees Provident Fund Act was disposed of. The court stayed the effect of the PF Commissioner's order dated 5th June 2026 and directed the Nagpur Bench Tribunal to hear the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, noting there was a vacancy at the Mumbai Tribunal. The petition was dismissed as the underlying appeal would be heard on merits by the Tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The Diocesan Society of Education's writ petition challenging a Regional PF Commissioner's order directing payment of Rs. 1,84,28,498 under the Employees Provident Fund Act was disposed of. The court stayed the effect of the PF Commissioner's order dated 5th June 2026 and directed the Nagpur Bench Tribunal to hear the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, noting there was a vacancy at the Mumbai Tribunal. The petition was dismissed as the underlying appeal would be heard on merits by the Tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case