HC Calls EPFO’s ₹4.05cr Fund Retention Arbitrary

The company challenged the order before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which on May 3, 2024 set aside the EPFO’s assessment and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The EPFO neither refunded the amount nor challenged the order for over 18 months, leading the company to approach the High Court.

During the hearing, the EPFO submitted that the amount represented employees’ social security contributions and that the appellate order had been challenged in 2025, with an interim stay granted. It argued that refunding the amount could affect proceedings relating to statutory interest and damages.

Rejecting the contention, the court noted the absence of any explanation for the delay between May 3, 2024 and November 19, 2025 in challenging the tribunal’s order. It held that retaining the funds without a protective judicial order was arbitrary and contrary to principles of fairness, restitution and equity.

The court directed the EPFO to pay interest at nine per cent per annum on ₹4.05 crore for the period between May 3, 2024 and November 19, 2025, within eight weeks. It further ordered that the interest liability be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay.

The court also directed that the interest accrued on the deposited amount during the same period be donated to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. It did not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying provident fund dispute.

HC dismisses claim over Banjara Hills land

The Telangana High Court has thrown out a private claim to nearly 4,900 square yards of prime land at Banjara Hills, holding that the petitioner relied on fabricated and unregistered documents to mislead the court. Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty imposed costs of ₹10,000 for the attempt to misrepresent facts.

Syed Abdul Khalid had sought protection against alleged interference by revenue officials, claiming he purchased the property in 1969 and remained in possession since then. He relied on a purported sale deed traced to an old patta, but the State argued he was attempting to grab government land with bogus records.

Assistant government pleader T. Swetcha submitted that the documents were ante dated, bore false signatures and were validated only for deficit stamp duty, which does not confer legality. She also pointed out that property tax receipts and a forged “No Objection Certificate” from the Shaikpet Tahasildar were produced to bolster the claim.

The court found that Document No. 8101 was merely a stamp paper serial number, not a registered conveyance, and clarified that deficit stamp duty cannot substitute for compulsory registration under law. A joint survey confirmed the land fell under another town survey number, while the disputed government land was separately identified as “Sarkari Kancha Tattikhana — Jubilee Hills.”

Citing Supreme Court rulings that litigants must approach courts with clean hands, Justice Alishetty held that Khalid had failed to prove title and had abused the judicial process. He was directed to deposit ₹10,000 with the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

HC dismisses land claim in Banjara Hills, imposes costs

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition claiming ownership over 4,865 square yards of land in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, holding that the petitioner failed to establish title and had misrepresented facts. The court imposed costs of ₹10,000.

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty was hearing a petition filed by Syed Abdul Khalid, who sought protection from alleged interference by revenue officials, claiming he had purchased the property in 1969 and remained in possession.

The state opposed the plea, alleging that the petitioner was attempting to grab government land using fabricated records, including a bogus patta and an unregistered sale deed in Urdu.

T. Swetcha, assistant government pleader for revenue, submitted that the documents relied upon were unregistered, ante-dated and bore bogus signatures, and were later validated only for deficit stamp duty, which did not confer legal status. She argued that property tax receipts did not establish title and alleged that a “No Objection Certificate” produced by the petitioner was forged, stating that Tahsildar offices were not competent to issue such certificates.

Examining the record, the court found that the document cited as a registered sale deed was not registered, and that “Document No.8101” referred only to a stamp paper serial number. It held that payment of deficit stamp duty could not substitute for mandatory registration under law.

The court further noted that the petitioner failed to produce any document showing how his vendor acquired title and held that he had falsely projected an unregistered document as a registered sale deed.

A joint survey conducted pursuant to earlier directions found that the claimed land formed part of a different town survey number, while the government signboard cited by the petitioner was located on vacant government land classified as “Sarkari Kancha Tattikhana – Jubilee Hills”. The survey established that there was no interference with the petitioner’s claimed land.

Citing Supreme Court rulings on the requirement of approaching courts with clean hands, the judge held that suppression and misrepresentation of material facts amounted to abuse of process.

The court concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove title and had attempted to mislead the court, and directed him to deposit ₹10,000 with the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.