REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BIHAR vs ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD. — C.A. No. 6538/2010
Case under Section XVI. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010226632009
Filing Date
01-Aug-2009
Registration No
C.A. No. 6538/2010
Diary Number
22663/2009
Order Date
08-Sep-2022
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BIHAR
Adv. MUKUL KUMAR[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD.
Adv. S. K. VERMA[R-1] DEVASHISH BHARUKA (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Sep-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Sep-2022
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
-
07-Sep-2022
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
-
06-Sep-2022
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
-
30-Aug-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Aug-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Feb-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Sep-2013
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Sep-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Apr-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Jan-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Oct-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Aug-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-May-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Mar-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Jan-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Dec-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Oct-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Aug-2009
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 6538/2010
Summary: C.A. No. 6538/2010 The Supreme Court dismissed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's appeal challenging the High Court's decision that employees retained by a liquidator to assist in company liquidation are not covered under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the liquidator has no obligation to deposit their provident fund contributions. The court upheld both the Single Judge and Division Bench findings that these retained employees do not qualify as employees under the 1952 Act. All pending applications were disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts