In a noteworthy development, the Karnataka High Court has temporarily stayed the arrest warrant issued against former cricketer Robin Uthappa in a Provident Fund (PF) fraud case.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, presiding over the vacation bench, also suspended related legal proceedings while hearing Uthappa’s plea to quash the recovery notices and the warrant.
The arrest warrant, issued on December 21 by Bengaluru police, followed directives from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on December 4. These directives demanded the recovery of Rs 23.36 lakh in unpaid PF dues, allegedly tied to Uthappa’s tenure as a director at Centaurus Lifestyle Brands. The allegations assert that the company deducted PF contributions from employees’ salaries but failed to deposit the amounts with the relevant authorities.
Uthappa served as a director of the company from 2018 until his resignation in May 2020. His legal team contends that he was not involved in the company’s operational activities. Senior advocate Prabhuling Navadgi, representing Uthappa, argued that his client’s limited involvement, as formalized in an agreement with the company’s founder, Krishnadas Thandanand Havade, absolves him of liability under the Employees’ Provident Funds (EPF) Act.
Navadgi emphasized that Uthappa’s role was non-operational and highlighted his prior resignation and notification to the authorities. He stated, “Robin Uthappa’s involvement was strictly non-operational. Moreover, he formally resigned and informed the relevant authorities well before these allegations were raised.” Other advocates on Uthappa’s legal team, including Chintan Chinappa, Sushant Belvet, and Venkatesh Kamath, underscored procedural flaws in the case, reinforcing their argument for dismissal.
The interim relief granted by the High Court offers Uthappa temporary respite as broader legal proceedings continue. This case highlights the complexities involved in determining the accountability of corporate directors in instances of alleged financial mismanagement.
The ruling is expected to contribute to jurisprudence surrounding corporate governance and the delineation of director responsibilities under the EPF Act. It also underscores the importance of procedural safeguards for individuals facing similar allegations.
As the case progresses, it will likely provide valuable insights into the interplay between regulatory compliance, corporate liability, and employee rights.
