Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (2.22 seconds)
Documents citing Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. (Now Known ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 June, 2005

Amit Suresh Bhatnagar vs Recovery Officer - Employees Provident ... on 5 October, 2018

C/SCA/11484/2012 IA ORDER Moreover, since the possessions of the unit was handed over to M/s. DPTL/ DPIL, provisions of Section 17B would also be attracted based on the ratio in the Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and others {2004(5) LLN.288 (Cal.H.C.)] "A legal fiction has been created in respect of the liabilities arising under any provision of 1952 Act to continue the liability for the purpose of facilitating recovery even in respect of the dues that had accrued prior to the date of transfer making both the transferor and the transferee liable jointly and severally. It is difficult to accept the proposition that the provisions of Section 17B would not extend to Section 14B despite the damages imposable thereunder being other sum due under the provisions of the Act."
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K M Thaker - Full Document

Vedanta Limited vs Registrar Of Companies on 9 December, 2022

The Calcutta High Court in Bengal Tea Industries Ltd v/s Union of India3 while dealing with objections raised on behalf of the Regional Director observed that since the scheme did not provide for any arrangement with the creditors of the company nor adversely affects the interest of the creditors it is not necessary in law to call a meeting of the creditors and obtain their views on the scheme.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Oscar Industries vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 14 June, 2022

(6) As per section 8F (3) (i) & (ii) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 the dues assessed can be recovered from any person who holds or may subsequently hold any money for or on account of the defaulter establishment/employer jointly with any other person and for the purposes of this sub section, the shares of the joint holders in such account shall be presumed. As per the Act, M/s Oscar Industries has became the owner of all the Assets & Liabilities of M/s Mathur Mirco Motors and Appliances Pvt.Ltd. On purchase of their Assets. Therefore, the sole responsibility to pay the PF dues has shifted from Mathur Mirco Motors and Appliances Pvt.Ltd to M/s Oscar Industries. The respondent has issued the attachment order against the assets of original defaulter now with M/s Oscar Industries (petitioner). By Virtue of purchase of properties of the defaulter Establishment, the Petitioner has become the Transferee who also is therefore, statutorily duty bound to pay the amounts defaulted by the Establishment with damages and penal interest. The Full bench of Calcutta High Court were pleased to discuss this issue in detail in similar matter, in the case filed by Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union of India, reported in (2006) 1 CALLT 32 (HC), "A transferee would be liable for the damages jointly and severally Page 7 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 18:47:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8304/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2022 in respect of defaults committed prior to the date of transfer by reason of Section 17B" and "In terms of the provisions contained in Section 17B, the amount recoverable under Section 14B is a sum due under the provisions of the 1952 Act."
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Y Kogje - Full Document

Lakshmi Niwas Bangur vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & ... on 7 August, 2008

12. The case of the Provident Fund Authorities has been argued by Mr. Prasad, whose main submission is that since the charge against the establishment is non-payment of dues to the Trust Fund, the employer is cannot be absolved of his responsibility. The respondents' main case on the point of the liability of the petitioner is that while discharging the duties of the managing director of the company, he was in charge of the affairs of the company. This rendered him liable for the dues of the company. His alternative case is that whether the petitioner comes within the ambit of the definition of employer or not is essentially a factual issue, and this Court in exercise of the constitutional writ jurisdiction ought not to enter into this aspect of the controversy. The decision relied upon by him in support of this submission is a judgment of a Special Bench of this Court in the case of Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2005(3) CHN 428.
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Bose - Full Document

Tayal Energy Limited vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 7 March, 2011

Counsel for the respondent-Provident Fund Commissioner has placed heavy reliance on Full Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dulgaon Agro Industries Ltd. (now known as Tasati Tea Limited) Vs. Union of India and others, 2005-III LLJ 356. No doubt, the Full Bench has held that transferee would be jointly and severally liable even in respect of sum due prior to the transfer, which sum includes damages as contemplated under Section 14-B of the Act but our own High Court and some other High Courts have taken a contrary view in this regard. Apparently, what had prompted the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court to take this view was the object and purpose of the Civil Writ Petition No.15933 of 2009 : 13 : statute, which was to give benefits to the employees. It was accordingly observed that the Court has to construe the same in a manner to advance the interest of the employees. The employees are employed in the establishment and they are concerned with the employer of the establishment for the time being. They can not be made to run after the transferor employer. Accordingly, the transferees were held liable. In the present case, however, neither the employees are the same nor is it the same establishment. The consideration which weighed with the Full Bench, thus, would not strictly apply in the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - R Singh - Full Document

M/S.Zeenath International Supplies vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 3 March, 2014

As against the said order, the appellant initially filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16490 of 2000, withdrawing the writ petition on the ground that they proposed to move the High Court of Andhra Pradsh and the writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 13.10.2000. Thereafter, the appellant moved the High Court of Andhra Pradhesh and the writ petition was dismissed and the order passed by the Tribunal was confirmed. Therefore, it is contended that the present appeal which has been filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act is not maintainable before this Court as the cause of action for filing the appeal does not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court as the situs of the Assessing Officer will determine the jurisdiction and not the situs of the Tribunal in this regard. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in support of his submission relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 769; the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 43; and the decision of the Special Bench of the High Court of Delhi constituted for reconsideration of the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s.Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 Delhi 174, (SB).
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Mcleod Russel India Limited vs Reg.Prov.Fund Comm.,Jalpaiguri & Ors on 2 July, 2014

In the impugned Order, the present Division Bench had the advantage of perusing the view taken by a Special Bench of three learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court in Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union of India, (2006) 1 CALLT 32 (HC), which was decided on 24.06.2005. The Special Bench was constituted in view of a reference submitted by a Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16037(W), who had entertained an opinion which differed with three earlier decisions rendered by Single Judges in three separate matters. Along with the aforestated writ petition, an appeal pending before a Division Bench against one of those Single Judge decisions was also taken up by the Special Bench. In this Appeal, therefore, we have primarily to consider whether the exposition of law by the Special Bench in Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. is the logical and acceptable view. 3 The factual matrix obtaining in the case at hand, succinctly stated, is that M/s. Mathura Tea Estate, P.O. Mathura Bagan, District Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, owned by Saroda Tea Company Ltd., indubitably an establishment covered by the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘the EPF Act’ for brevity), had defaulted in remitting the contributions and accumulations payable under the EPF Act and the sundry Schemes formulated under that statute. It was in those circumstances that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (‘RPF Commissioner’ for brevity), Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, had issued notices to M/s. Mathura Tea Estate enabling it to show cause against the imposition of ‘damages’ as envisaged under Section 14B of the EPF Act. M/s. Mathura Tea Estate requested for a waiver of damages, which request came to be rejected on the predication that the said establishment was neither a sick unit nor the subject of any scheme for rehabilitation sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. In the duration of those proceedings, the management of M/s. Mathura Tea Estate under the erstwhile ownership of Saroda Tea Company Ltd. was taken over by Eveready Industries (India) Ltd, which thereafter discharged the liability of entire principal sum of Provident Fund dues to the tune of Rs.75,76,000/- pertaining to the period prior to the takeover in consonance with the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between it and Saroda Tea Company Ltd. Significantly, the said Memorandum of Understanding also included a clause to the effect that any damages payable for the failure to deposit the dues and accumulations under the EPF Act would be the exclusive liability of Saroda Tea Company Ltd making it palpably evident that the appellant was fully alive to this liability. It is in these premises that Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. undauntedly contended before the RPF Commissioner, Jalpaiguri, in the event in futility, that proceedings under Section 14B of the EPF Act against it were unjustified as it was not the “employer” defined under Section 2(e) of the EPF Act, which defaulted in paying contributions. The RPF Commissioner has recorded that M/s. Mathura Tea Estate had defaulted in payment of dues for the period from March, 1989 to February, 1998, which assertion of fact is not in dispute. It held that on a conjoint reading of Sections 14B and 17B of the EPF Act it was clear that damages under Section 14B were recoverable jointly and severally from Saroda Tea Company Ltd. as well as Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. After tabulating the rates of damages, i.e. percentage of arrears per annum depending on the period of default, damages were assessed at Rs.70,37,950; and it was further directed that failure to deposit penal damages within the stipulated period would attract the provisions of Section 7Q of the EPF Act, thereby enhancing the liability to include simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the damages. It was this Order of the RPF Commissioner that failed to find favour with the learned Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta, who set aside the Commissioner’s Orders and directed the said Authority to reconsider the issues within a period of three months.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 12 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next