EPFO garnishment on Nashik construction firm for predecessor mill's dues set aside
The EPFO issued a prohibitory order dated 22 August 2025 restraining a private Nashik construction company from paying its lessor, to recover the lessor mill's PF arrears of Rs.2,52,17,137/-. The company said it was not the transferee of the employer and had no privity with the defaulter. The Bombay High Court on 18 November 2025 partly allowed the writ and set aside the order against the company.
This page records what the cited court, tribunal and government records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The prohibitory recovery order stands quashed against the company and is to be treated only as a notice with a right of reply.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the petitioner is a private limited company with its registered office at Nashik, and that the impugned order restrained it from paying amounts it owed to the sugar factory described as the employer in arrears.
The High Court recorded that the employer in arrears had committed default in payment of provident fund and other dues of Rs.2,52,17,137/-, and that the petitioner denied being a transferee of that employer with no privity between them.
The High Court recorded that the determination of liability had not been assailed, and the dispute concerned recovery from the petitioner as lessee for dues of the period before it became lessee.
The High Court held that the prohibitory order dated 22 August 2025 stood quashed and set aside against the petitioner, to be treated instead as a notice, with liberty to file a statement on oath, and made the rule absolute to that extent.
What the record says
“whereby the Petitioner has been restrained from making payment”
[name withheld] v EPFO, Writ Petition No. 12754 of 2025, judgment text describing the prohibitory order — read the full text
A peaceful economic act
A private firm faced coercive recovery for a staffing-linked statutory due without any allegation of injury, child or bonded labour, or unpaid take-home wages to its own workers.
What we could not confirm
Paragraph numbers of the judgment could not be confirmed from the excerpt; full text of the Section 8-F(3) notice procedure was not verified.