Jayakumar S. Vs. the Authorized Officer, and ors.

.....debts held, sub-section (2) was inserted in section 11 by amendment act no.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. while enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under section 14-b and accumulations required to be transferred under section 15 (2). the legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of section 17, therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under section 7-a or the contribution payable under section 8. if interest payable by the employer under section 7-q and damages leviable under section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in section 11 (2). it cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under section 7-q and damages leviable under section 14-b do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of section 11(2) of the act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of section 11 (2). .....since there was consecutive default for more than three monthly instalments, the loan account was classified as 'npa' on 10.03.2010. it is further stated that on 30.11.2010 there is an outstanding liability of rs.1.90 lakhs. 4. considering the fact that the statute provides effective alternate statutory remedy to challenge the steps initiated under sarfaesi act, it is not proper or justified to interfere to restrain such proceedings. this is especially in view of the directions of the hon'ble supreme court in united bank of india v. satyavati tondon and others [2010 (8) scc 110]. 5. however, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the sarfaesi proceedings and he is not intending to invoke any of the statutory remedies. on the other hand, the limited prayer is to permit to regularize the account, on the basis of an offer that he will pay off the defaulted arrears within a short period. 6. having considered the facts and circumstances, i am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to regularize the account. 7. accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps pursuant to the notices already issued, provided the petitioner remits the amounts in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 9 (nine) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.12.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. the petitioner shall also make payment of the regular instalments due for the respective months from december, 2010 onwards. 8. if payment of the defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to make payment of the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule. 9. it is also made clear that the respondents will be free.....