Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 10 June, 2021

M/S Punj Security And Housekeeping ... vs Employees Provident Fund Organization ... on 1 June, 2022

Same is the situation in the judgment rendered in M/s. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. (supra); M/s. Ashmit Motors Private Limited, Nagpur (supra) & Manvish Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Hence, the said judgments are totally distinguishable. Moreover, a judgment delivered by another High Court is of only persuasive value and not as any binding precedent, even that if the same is found to be in consonance with the provisions of law contained in the Statute.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R Sehrawat - Full Document

Jaibharat Textiles And Real Estate ... vs The Regional Provident Funds ... on 18 August, 2022

The only contention is that, after filing of application under Section 7-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (pg 41), the petitioner was neither noticed nor heard as was the requirement under Section 7-B(4) (a) of the EPF Act. Reliance is also placed in the case of Deogiri nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another 1.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A G Gharote - Full Document

M/S Dharampeth Education Societys, ... vs The Regional P. F. Commissioner -Ii, ... on 19 December, 2022

3. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner has mainly emphasize that review application was decided without issuing notices or giving right of hearing and thus, it is ex facie illegal. By placing specific reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner 2022(1) Mh.L.J 259 it has been canvassed that review application must be decided on merit after giving right of hearing to the establishment.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V G Joshi - Full Document

M/S Mehetre Hospital, Buldhana Thr. Its ... vs The Asstt Provident Funds ... on 19 December, 2022

3. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner has mainly emphasize that review application was decided without issuing notices or giving right of hearing and thus, it is ex facie illegal. By placing specific reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner 2022(1) Mh.L.J 259 it has been canvassed that review application must be decided on merit after giving right of hearing to the establishment.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V G Joshi - Full Document
1