Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 30894 OF 2025 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
ZONTA INFRATECH PVT LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
ST
RAHEJA CHAMBERS, NO.12, 1 FLOOR,
ABOVE TAFE OFFICE,
MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY,
SREEJU S NAIR,
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI HEMANTH R RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU, (MALLESHWARAM)
BHAVISHYA NIDHI, BHAWAN, NO. 13,
RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560025.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAMOD B, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAMILA G V
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
A. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING
NOBG/BNG(MWM)/COMP/2D/1548758/2024-25/281PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE - A.B. CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE
WRIT QUASHING THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED 09.07.2025
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING NO.BG/BNG-
M/RO/RECOVERY/2025-26/1548758/07 PRODUCED AT
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
ANNEXURE B.C. GRANT ANY OTHER ORDER/ORDERS AS MAY
BE DEEMED FIT AND PROPER BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated
28.02.2025 passed by the respondent marked at Annexure-A and
also sought the relief of quashing the prohibitory order dated
09.07.2025 marked at Annexure-B.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the order at Annexure-A is erroneous and liable to be
set aside and the contributions made by the petitioner are not
taken into account while passing the said order. He would further
submit that the order at Annexure-B is a consequential order and
once the order at Annexure-A is set aside, same has to be set
aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
has to file an appeal against the order at Annexure-A as the statute
provides for an appeal. It is further submitted that the appeal is not
filed in time and to circumvent the provision relating to the
statutory appeal and statutory deposit which is prescribed for filing
an appeal, the present writ petition is filed. It is further submitted
that no material is placed to show that the contributions made by
the petitioner are not taken into account while passing the order.
5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the
Bar and perused the records.
6.
Admittedly, the order at Annexure-A is an appealable
order under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the appeal is not
filed. It is also noticed that the appeal is not filed within 60 days
from the date of the order and the statutory period for filing the
appeal has also expired and it is a settled position of law that the
delay cannot be condoned beyond 120 days and the 120 days
period has also expired. Thus, the Court does not find any merit in
the contention of the petitioner that the petition has to be
considered on merits.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. It is also noticed that there are no records to show that
alleged payment made by the petitioner is not taken into account
by the respondent. Thus, the order at Annexure-A is upheld. The
order at Annexure-B is the attachment order and same is passed
as payment is not made by the petitioner. In terms of the
attachment order, the bank account of the petitioner is attached
and petitioner is restrained from operating the bank account. This
Court had granted the interim order staying the operation of the
order at Annexure-B.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is an ongoing concern and the Bank account in case is
attached and petitioner is restrained from operating the bank
account, the petitioner will not be in a position to carry out the day
to day transactions and several employees of the petitioner will
suffer.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
the impugned ordered at Annexure-B is consequent to Annexure-A
order and same cannot be quashed as Annexure-A is validly
passed.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. It is noticed that the petitioner has given an
undertaking in the form of an affidavit dated 11.02.2026 to pay the
entire balance amount in 24 monthly installments. The Court has
perused the said affidavit. The petitioner has provided the payment
schedule in the said affidavit.
11. It is also noticed that there is a clause wherein the
petitioner has agreed that in the event of single default, the
respondent can proceed to take further action to recover the entire
dues.
12. That being the position, the Court finds that in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has
made out a case to quash the order at Annexure-B with a rider to
comply with the undertaking made in the affidavit dated
11.02.2026. It is also made clear that, in case of default in making
any one of the payments undertaken, then the respondent is at
liberty to proceed further in accordance with law, as if Annexure-B
is in force.
13. It is also made clear that, this order should not be
construed as having restrained the respondent from proceeding to
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
recover the penalty, interest, or damages, if any, payable in
accordance with law.
14. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed
of. The order at Annexure-B is quashed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 30894 OF 2025 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
ZONTA INFRATECH PVT LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
ST
RAHEJA CHAMBERS, NO.12, 1 FLOOR,
ABOVE TAFE OFFICE,
MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY,
SREEJU S NAIR,
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI HEMANTH R RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU, (MALLESHWARAM)
BHAVISHYA NIDHI, BHAWAN, NO. 13,
RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560025.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAMOD B, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAMILA G V
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
A. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING
NOBG/BNG(MWM)/COMP/2D/1548758/2024-25/281PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE - A.B. CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE
WRIT QUASHING THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED 09.07.2025
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING NO.BG/BNG-
M/RO/RECOVERY/2025-26/1548758/07 PRODUCED AT
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
ANNEXURE B.C. GRANT ANY OTHER ORDER/ORDERS AS MAY
BE DEEMED FIT AND PROPER BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated
28.02.2025 passed by the respondent marked at Annexure-A and
also sought the relief of quashing the prohibitory order dated
09.07.2025 marked at Annexure-B.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the order at Annexure-A is erroneous and liable to be
set aside and the contributions made by the petitioner are not
taken into account while passing the said order. He would further
submit that the order at Annexure-B is a consequential order and
once the order at Annexure-A is set aside, same has to be set
aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
has to file an appeal against the order at Annexure-A as the statute
provides for an appeal. It is further submitted that the appeal is not
filed in time and to circumvent the provision relating to the
statutory appeal and statutory deposit which is prescribed for filing
an appeal, the present writ petition is filed. It is further submitted
that no material is placed to show that the contributions made by
the petitioner are not taken into account while passing the order.
5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the
Bar and perused the records.
6.
Admittedly, the order at Annexure-A is an appealable
order under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the appeal is not
filed. It is also noticed that the appeal is not filed within 60 days
from the date of the order and the statutory period for filing the
appeal has also expired and it is a settled position of law that the
delay cannot be condoned beyond 120 days and the 120 days
period has also expired. Thus, the Court does not find any merit in
the contention of the petitioner that the petition has to be
considered on merits.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. It is also noticed that there are no records to show that
alleged payment made by the petitioner is not taken into account
by the respondent. Thus, the order at Annexure-A is upheld. The
order at Annexure-B is the attachment order and same is passed
as payment is not made by the petitioner. In terms of the
attachment order, the bank account of the petitioner is attached
and petitioner is restrained from operating the bank account. This
Court had granted the interim order staying the operation of the
order at Annexure-B.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is an ongoing concern and the Bank account in case is
attached and petitioner is restrained from operating the bank
account, the petitioner will not be in a position to carry out the day
to day transactions and several employees of the petitioner will
suffer.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
the impugned ordered at Annexure-B is consequent to Annexure-A
order and same cannot be quashed as Annexure-A is validly
passed.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. It is noticed that the petitioner has given an
undertaking in the form of an affidavit dated 11.02.2026 to pay the
entire balance amount in 24 monthly installments. The Court has
perused the said affidavit. The petitioner has provided the payment
schedule in the said affidavit.
11. It is also noticed that there is a clause wherein the
petitioner has agreed that in the event of single default, the
respondent can proceed to take further action to recover the entire
dues.
12. That being the position, the Court finds that in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has
made out a case to quash the order at Annexure-B with a rider to
comply with the undertaking made in the affidavit dated
11.02.2026. It is also made clear that, in case of default in making
any one of the payments undertaken, then the respondent is at
liberty to proceed further in accordance with law, as if Annexure-B
is in force.
13. It is also made clear that, this order should not be
construed as having restrained the respondent from proceeding to
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9733
WP No. 30894 of 2025
HC-KAR
recover the penalty, interest, or damages, if any, payable in
accordance with law.
14. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed
of. The order at Annexure-B is quashed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46