Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Wire Netting Stores Delhi And Anr. vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 May, 1981

Shyam Kishore vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 1 February, 1991

(53) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case M/s. Wire Netting Stores, Delhi and another v. The Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, New Delhi and others, 1981 Lab I.C 1015. In this case no right of appeal was available to an employer and the provisions of Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act weretield to be unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has been that even in the instant case there is practically no right of appeal on account of an onerous condition of pre-deposit and so proviso to Section 170 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India We have carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and have, no doubt, in our mind that this judgment cannot be of any help to the petitioners The admitted facts in the said case were that no appeal was provided from the decision of the Commissioner of Provident Funds nor could it be justified in a civil court. It was280held that a provision should have been made for an appeal to tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial. It is also pertinent to note that in the laid case powers were conferred on the Commissioner to enforce attendance of persons to examine them on oath and require discovery and production of documents.However, no such right was made available to the employer. In this way, the procedure provided was not just as it did not provide similar opportunities to the employer as were made available to the Commissioner. There was a complete absence of the right to challenge the order of the Commissioner which was made final as there was no provision for appeal nor could the same be challenged in a civil court. The facts of the present case arc, however,entirely different and a right of appeal has certainly been provided though a proviso to the effect that the amount of tax has to be deposited before the appeal ii beard or determined. The judgment, thus. is distinguishable and cannot be of any help to the petitioners.
Delhi High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Shri Shyam Kishore vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ... on 1 January, 1991

52. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case M/s. Wire Netting Stores, Delhi v. The Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, New Delhi, . In this case no right of appeal was available to an employer and the provisions of Sec. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act were held to be unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has been that even in the instant case there is practically no right of appeal on account of an onerous condition of predeposit and so proviso to Sec. 170 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We have carefully gone through, the aforesaid judgment and have, no doubt, in our mind that this-judgment cannot be of any help to the petitioners. The admitted facts in the said case were that no appeal was provided from the decision of the Commissioner of Provident Funds nor could it be justified in a Civil Court. It was held that a provision should have been made for an appeal to tribunal, judicial or quasijudicial. It is also pertinent to note that in the said case powers were conferred on the Commissioner to enforce attendance of persons to examine them on oath and require discovery and production of documents. However, no such right was made available to the employer. In this way, the procedure provided was not just as it did not provide similar opportunities to the employer as were made available to the Commissioner. There was a complete absence of the right to challenge the order of the Commissioner though with a proviso to the effect that the amount of tax has to be deposited before the appeal is heard or determined. This judgment, thus, is distinguishable and cannot be of any help to the petitioners.
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cantonment Board vs St. John'S School And Anr. on 17 July, 2002

In Wire Netting Stores, Delhi v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, New Delhi, 1981 Lab IC 1015, Delhi High Court held the provision in Employees' Provident Fund Act to this effect as violative 'of the provisions against which appeal was pending. Supreme Court, however, took another route, in the facts of the said case, to construe the provisions of Section 170(b) for saving its constitutionally. It held firstly, that the words 'heard and determined', under Section 170(b) are capable of broader interpretation and that the payment of disputed tax is not a condition precedent to the entertainment or admission of the appeal and that such an interpretation will provide some much needed relief for the harshness of the provision. The assessee may not be able to deposit tax while filing the appeal but may be able to pay it up within a short time or at any rate before appeal comes on for hearing in the normal course. Some times to compel the assessee to pay the demanded tax for several years in succession might very well cripple him, or, the hearing of the appeal may be adjourned to give him a chance to pay up the tax and thus Clause (b) of Section 170 was read down as precondition to the hearing of the appeal at its disposal and not to as a condition to entertainment of the appeal itself. A careful reading of the report shows that Supreme Court tried to save its validity by softening its rigour of deposit of tax due only as a condition of hearing and its disposal on merit and made observations against compulsion to pay demanded tax of several years or tax alleged to have accrued during pendency of appeal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 3 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 19 May, 2015

21. The decision in Wire Netting Store, Delhi (supra) was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the proposition that the availability of a constitutional remedy would not remove the lacuna of a provision which was inherently unconstitutional. There can be no dispute with this proposition. The provision which is challenged, as being violative of Article WP(C) 1334/2015 & ORS Page 30 of 37 14 of the Constitution, would have to be tested on its own without recourse to the availability of the remedy of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 48 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Ishwarbhai Gokulbhai Surti vs K.M. Bhatt And Ors. on 28 December, 2001

12. As far as the Constitutional validity of Section 7A of the Act is concerned, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has not argued much- However, he has relied on the pleadings made in the petition as well as arguments raised in the written arguments. According to the petitioner, Section 7A of the Act is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and hence it needs to be quashed and is ultra vires on the ground that the exclusion of judicial review of the order passed under Section 7A is unreasonable and that extraordinary remedy is not sufficient and that the hearing postulated by Section 7A would not be an effective hearing and that there is no appeal provision from an order under Section 7A of the Act. In support of this contention, the learned. Advocate has relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Wire Netting Stores, Delhi and Anr. v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., 1981 Lab. IC 1015, wherein the Court has held as under :
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - K A Puj - Full Document

St.Anthony School By Vice Pres vs Employees Provident Fund Organ on 9 July, 2012

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Patna High Court in a case of The Jamshedpur General Consumers' Central Co- operative Stores, Ltd. and another Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 1979 LAB. I C. 317 in which it is observed that Competent Authority is required to pass a speaking order only more so while deciding as to whether for the default in any particular year any penal damages were called for at all and if so to what extent.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

Jay Presstressed Products Ltd. And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 September, 2001

2. Though the question has become of academic interest, in view of insertion of Section 7D to 7P of the Act inter alia dealing with Constitution and functioning of Tribunal to deal with appeal from an order under Section 7-A even otherwise the view expressed in that case is not correct. Mere absence of an appellate forum would not render the provision relating to adjudication unconstitutional. A similar view was expressed by a Constitutional. A similar view was expressed by a constitution Bench of the Apex Court in M/s. Gammon India Ltd. etc. v. Union of India and Others .
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1