Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Sunder Transport And Anr. vs The Regional P.F. Commissioner on 4 September, 1992

M/S New Power Supply,A Partnership ... vs The Deputy Regional Director & Another on 18 September, 2019

(7) Sunder Transport & Anr. Vs. The Regional P.F. Commissioner [1992 II CLR 977]. In the cited judgment, it is observed that "not only the composition of the partners but the number of partners, their shares etc. all are different. The business of these firms is also not the same. The firms are in existence since 1964 from much before 1975 when the provisions of the Provident Funds Act were made applicable to the activities undertaken by one of the firms, namely, Sunder Transport. It is also, therefore, not ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2019 05:27:44 ::: 13 jg.fa 347.06.odt possible to contend that these firms were created as separate and independent firms to avoid the liability under the Provident Funds Act. ...."
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M G Giratkar - Full Document

Marvel Granites Rep. By Its Managing ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 10 October, 2007

The matter was carried by way of Appeal to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No. 576(1)/05 and the Appellate Tribunal after referring to the facts and also the contentions of the parties further referred to Niton Industries v. Union of India 2000 (1) LLJ 1518, Sunder Transport and Anr. v. Regional P.F. Commissioner 1993 (1) LLJ 811, Evans Food Corporation v. Union of India 1994 FJR 40 and the decision referred (1) supra and at para-6 observed as hereunder:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Indersons Motors P. Ltd. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - ... on 29 January, 2013

In Sunder Transport and Anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1993 LLR 165, the Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where the petitioner M/s Sunder Transport - a partnership firm, was carrying on business of transport of chassis and trucks and products of Bharat Petroleum. There was another entity M/s Bafna Motors-also a partnership firm. It was holding a dealership of international tractors and parts thereof. M/s Bafna Investment Industries was another partnership firm in the field of investments. M/s Bafna Finance was yet another partnership firm. There was some commonality between the partners of these firms. What is important is that they were operating from the same office premises and using the same/common telephone numbers and post box numbers. They were also using the services of the same persons to write accounts. The Provident Fund authorities sought to invoke Section 2A in respect of these establishments. The Bombay High Court after examining the businesses W.P.(C.) No. 22886/2005 Page 14 of 17 carried on by these firms turned down this move of the authorities. The Bombay High Court, inter alia, observed as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Joint Regional Director, Esi ... vs L.D. Bhave And Sons on 21 July, 1994

12. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to and relied upon the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Pratap Press. etc. v. Their Workmen reported in (1960) I LLJ 497 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunder Transport & Anr. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1992 II CLR 977 and the judgment of this Court in case of Ebrahim Currim & Sons v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. (1994) I LLJ 369. If appears to be that the respondent is well supported by the ratio of judgments of this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

C. Dhanvantrai & Co. & Others vs Mahesh Kumar & Others on 13 April, 1994

(d) The Respondent No. 1 shall apply all relevant tests as far as possible including the test indicated above and the test laid down in various other judgments including the test laid down by this Court in the case of Sunder Transport & Anr. v. The Regional P. F. Commissioner, 1992 II CLR 977, If it is the case of the respondents No. 1 that all these firms were formed as subterfuge from inception, the necessary particulars in respect of the said allegation shall be furnished to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hotel Yamuna Villa, A Partner Ship Firm, ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 29 December, 2005

In Sunder Transport v. The Regional P.F. Commissioner reported in 1993 (66) FLR 528, some partners in the Firms were common all the four establishments were situated in one premises; they used common telegraphic address and post box number; maintained accounts by a common accountant etc. It was held that these circumstances were not sufficient to hold that they were one establishment.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R K Merathia - Full Document
1