Supreme Court of India
THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND ORS. versus LALA J.R. EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.
- Decided
- 26 September 2016
- Judges listed
- KURIAN JOSEPH
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2016] 5 S.C.R. 406 ยท 2016 INSC 915
- Also cited as
- (2016) 14 SCC 679
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Delay condoned.
p. 406, margin G
Leave granted.
p. 406, margin H
Appellants are aggrieved since the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC has been rejected.
p. 407, margin A
According to the appellants, the respondents having exhausted all the remedies under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, cannot thereafter approach the Civil Court, which is barred under Section 7L(4) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
p. 407, margin A
On an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, the Civil Court can only see the pleadings in the plaint and not anything else including written statement.
p. 407, margin B
The main grievance urged in .the plaint is that the procedure under the Act has not been followed and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to file a suit. If that be so, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit, as held by this Court in the case of Dllulabliai tmd Others Vs. Tile State of Madhya Prtuleslt <tnd Anr. reported in (1968) 3 SCR 662.
p. 407, margin C
According to the appellants, the respondents have suppressed crucial facts in the plaint, which if seen, the suit is only to be dismissed at the threshold. Rejection of a plaint on institutional grounds is different from dismissal ofa suit at pre-trial stage on the ground of maintainability. For dismissal on a preliminary issue, the Court is entitled and liable to look into the entire documents including those furnished by the defendant.
p. 407, margin D
In view of the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
p. 407, margin E
Howev~r, we permit the appellants to raise a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit, in which case, before proceeding with the trial, the trial court shall deal with the same in accordance with law. No costs. Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.
p. 407, margin E