Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 7 February, 2001

Unknown vs S.D. College 1997(Ii)Llj 69 on 2 December, 2003

The aforesaid facts have been upheld by various High Courts. The Division Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Union of India Vs. Super Processors (1993 (1) CLR, 457), Andrew Yule and Co. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2001(1) LLJ 1385 (Cal), Swastik Woolens, Ludhiana Vs. Presiding Officer, Employees' Appellate Tribunal, 2002 III CLR 999; 2003 (1) LLJ 241 (P&H) DB as well as Navnital K. Shah Vs. Union of India, 2004 (100) FIR 146 p. 155 (Bom.) has clearly ruled that the amended scheme has to be followed while imposing the damages.
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Vijai Shree Ltd. & Anr vs Regional P.F. Commissioner on 25 February, 2025

In answer to this, the learned Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Authority contended that as per para 38 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 payment will be recovered within 15 days of every month meaning thereby if any payment is due and payable for the current month, the 15th of the following month will be the cut off date of recovery. In such case, if any amount is not paid within such period, the authority concerned will be entitled for recovery of interest. The authority is also entitled to recover the damages due to default. He has relied upon a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in 2001 (1) CHN 343 (Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner) under which the question of payment under section 14B was discussed. However, the same stand on a different context. Each case has to be determined on the basis of the situation available before the Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the authority concerned very much relied upon different paragraphs of the Scheme, 1952, i.e. paras 30, 32, 32A and 38."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Allied Electricals And Switch Fuses And ... vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 10 February, 2003

In answer to this, learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Authority contended that as per paragraph 38 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, payment will be recovered within 15 days of every month meaning thereby if any payment is due and payable for the current month, the 15th of the following month will be the cut off date of recovery. In such case, if any amount is not paid within such period, the authority concerned will be entitled for recovery of interest. The authority is also entitled to recover the damages due to default. He has relied upon a single Bench decision of this Court in Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2001-I-LLJ-1385 (Cal) under which the question of payment under Section 14B was discussed. However, the same stands on a different context. Each case has to be determined on the basis of the situation available before the Court. The learned counsel appearing for the authority concerned very much relied upon different paragraphs of the Scheme 1952, i.e., paragraphs 30, 32, 32-A and 38.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Lala - Full Document
1