JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner is one and the same establishment in both the writ petitions. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.38189/2005), the petitioner challenges the recovery notice dated 07.11.2005 and seeks to set aside the same. By the impugned notice, the bankers of the petitioner viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Tiruchirapalli -2 was directed to remit the amounts to the respondent ESI for the liability fixed on the petitioner in respect of the amounts payable by one Hotel Leela and Sri Krishna Appalam for the period from 13.07.2004 to 01.08.2005, amounting to Rs.4,37,906/-. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 29.11.2005. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. 3. Even during the pendency of the writ petition, the same petitioner filed the second writ petition being W.P.No.41268 of 2005, seeking to challenge the notices dated 21.02.2005 and 04.09.2000. In the notice dated 21.02.2005, the petitioner's hotel was informed that there was no remittance for the period from January 2003 to March 2003 and since the petitioner has taken over the business from the previous employer, they are covered by the provisions of Section 93-A of the ESI Act. Therefore, they were directed to pay the contribution. That writ petition was admitted on 23.12.2005. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. 4. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit dated 20.12.2010 was filed by the respondents in W.P.No.38189 of 2005. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, an additional affidavit was filed in the second writ petition dated Nil (January 2011). The petitioner also filed additional typed set containing Certificate of Sales Tax registration, various sale deeds dated March 2000, copy of the licence issued by the Corporation of Tiruchirapalli as well as by the Fire Department. They also filed copies of receipts issued by the Corporation of Tiruchirapalli with reference to the property tax paid by them. 6. The main contention taken by the respondent ESI with reference to the issuance of impugned notice was that the Inspector of ESI visited the premises on 11.06.1996 in which the present employer carried on business. At that time, the said Establishment was known as Hotel Leela and in the same premises, they were also running one Sri Krishna Appalam and more than 11 workers were employed. One K.P.Johnson was the Managing Partner of the first unit and owner of the second unit. At that time, the said Establishment was known as Hotel Leela and in the same premises, they were also running one Sri Krishna Appalam and more than 11 workers were employed. One K.P.Johnson was the Managing Partner of the first unit and owner of the second unit. Both the units were covered by the provisions of the E.S.I. Act. The Hotel was using power with Grinder for manufacturing eatables and since they were having more than 11 workers in the two units which are inseparable, the Act was made applicable. Subsequently, the present petitioner has taken over the business. Therefore, in the light of Section 93(A) of the ESI Act, they are bound to make payment towards the past liability and also the current liability. An order under Section 45-A of the ESI Act was proposed. Subsequently, a final order was passed covering the period from 11/1999 to 3/2002. Since after show cause notice, the petitioner did not reply, an order under Section 45-A came to be passed. Since the petitioner did not dispute the said order, the other proceedings are natural. It was also further contended that in the absence of Section 45-A under challenge before the appropriate ESI Court, there is no impediment for the respondents to enforce the order. 7. The main contention of the ESI was that there is a transfer of establishment in terms of Section 93-A. Section 93-A of the ESI Act may be usefully extracted below: "93-A Liability in case of transfer of establishment.-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale, gift, lease or license or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to the date of such transfer: Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer." 8. The contention of the petitioner was that only in March 2000, they have purchased the property through five separate sale deeds and they did not take over any business. The Certificate for licence was issued in the present name by the Corporation on 03.05.2010. The contention of the petitioner was that only in March 2000, they have purchased the property through five separate sale deeds and they did not take over any business. The Certificate for licence was issued in the present name by the Corporation on 03.05.2010. The present business is in no way connected with the earlier business run by one Johnson and his wife. Despite several opportunities, the respondent ESI was unable to produce any document to show that the petitioner has taken over the earlier business and are continuing to operate the same business. 9. Section 93-A of the Act refers to transfer of an establishment by any means whatsoever and in such cases, the transferee was also jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. But in the absence of the respondent ESI producing any credible material to show that there was a transfer of establishment, the question of their directing the petitioner to pay the arrears over the past liability will not arise. If the ESI was alert then they could have attached the properties of the previous owner either at the time when they were running the business or at the time when they sold the property but on that score, they cannot proceed against the present petitioner. Section 93-A is not entitled for such purpose and there is also no impediment for the ESI in proceeding against the erstwhile owner either as against their properties or in their individual capacity and recover the amount. The impugned notice is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of ESI. There is no satisfactory material produced to justify the said recovery. 10. Hence, both the writ petitions will stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. This will not prevent the respondent ESI to cover the present petitioner if they are otherwise covered by the provisions of the Act. The present writ petition confine only to the past liability of the erstwhile owner of the premises. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.