PUNJAB TRACTOR LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION & OTHERS — CWP/27518/2017

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 02-Dec-2017

CNR: PHHC010973892017

Filing Number

CWP/27518/2017

Filing Date

01-Dec-2017

Registration No

CWP/27518/2017

Registration Date

01-Dec-2017

Judge

Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Coram

Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Bench Type

Single

Category

18.5 - LABOUR ( 452 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PUNJAB TRACTOR LIMITED

    Adv. VIRANJEET SINGH MAHAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION & OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Kuldeep TiwariView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of Punjab Tractor Limited's writ petition challenging EPF recovery notices, finding the main relief moot since the underlying order had already been set aside by the appellate authority and the recovered amount refunded. While dismissing the petition, the court permitted the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent forum for its claim of interest on the amount unlawfully retained during the recovery period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Jul-2018

    Mr. Justice Dr. Shekher Dhawan

  4. 26-Jul-2018

    —

    Mr. Justice Girish Agnihotri

  5. 27-Apr-2018

    Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

  6. 23-Mar-2018

    —

    Mr Justice Jaswant Singh

  7. 02-Dec-2017

    Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

  8. 02-Dec-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 01-Dec-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/27518/2017

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of Punjab Tractor Limited's writ petition challenging EPF recovery notices, finding the main relief moot since the underlying order had already been set aside by the appellate authority and the recovered amount refunded. While dismissing the petition, the court permitted the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent forum for its claim of interest on the amount unlawfully retained during the recovery period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case