Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Supreme Court of India

Regional Provident Fund Commnr. & Ors vs Abs Spinning Orissa Ltd. & Anr on 1 October, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2008 SC 311, (2008) 3 CURLR 580, (2008) 4 LAB LN 642, (2009) 120 FACLR 385

Bench: Aftab Alam, Tarun Chatterjee

                                                              1

                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 CIVIL APPEAL NO.6928 OF 2002



REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. & ORS.                             .....APPELLANT(S)



                                    VERSUS



ABS SPINNING ORISSA LTD. & ANR.                        ....RESPONDENT(S)




                                           O R D E R

This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 9th October, 2001 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in OJC No.2851/2001 allowing the Writ Petition partly on the ground that the holding company cannot be held liable for the recovery of provident fund dues of its subsidiary company. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent No.2 being holding company of respondent No.1 is liable to pay the provident funds dues outstanding against its subsidiary company i.e. respondent No.1. However, Mr.B.B.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that respondent No.2 being holding company of respondent No.1 is liable to pay the provident funds dues outstanding against its subsidiary company i.e. respondent No.1. We are not in agreement with the same as we are of the view that the subsidiary company has an independent existence as against the holding company and, therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to clear the provident funds dues of its subsidiary company, namely, the respondent No.1. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

However, it will be open for the appellants to proceed against respondent No.1 in accordance with law.

2

.............................J. ( TARUN CHATTERJEE ) .............................J. ( AFTAB ALAM ) NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 1, 2008.