Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Manager, Vijaya Bank, Padubidri, ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ... on 1 February, 1999

R. Raghu S/O. Sri Rajanna vs State Of Karnataka By The Secretary To ... on 9 April, 2007

He has also relied on another decision rendered by this Court reported in Manager Vijaya Bank v. Regional Provident Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Balamatta, Mangalore 2003 (6) K.L.J. 413. The commissioner being the Statutory authority the power to be exercised by him should be traceable to one or the other provisions of the Act, and if the court finds that particular power exercised by him is ultra vires the Act, the court would be justified in stepping in and nullifying such actions. Therefore it is contended that the action of the fourth respondent in issuing annexure-G is null and void.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K Ramanna - Full Document

Radheshyam Ajitsaria & Anr vs Bengal Chatkal Mazdoor Union & Ors on 24 May, 2006

3. Manager, Vijaya Bank, Padubidri, Dakshina Kannada vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Balmatta, Mangalore and Ors. 1999(5) Kar.L.J.459, para 7 (Karnataka High Court) At the very least, by virtue of Section 11(2), the claims of the Provident Fund authorities are akin to secured claims and, therefore, have a priority over the unsecured claims and that the amount of money lying with the Registrar is far less than the arrears of the Provident Fund department and, therefore, in consonance with the legislative mandate embodied in Section 11(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the money should first be paid to the provident fund authorities before they are disbursed to unsecured creditors. Concluding his arguments, Mr. R.F. Nariman submitted that in the present case, substantial justice has been done to the workers and no interference by this Court is called for. When dealing with an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no failure of justice, it is not bound to decide and interfere even when a question of jurisdiction of the original Court of Tribunal is raised and even if the impugned judgment is wrong. The following rulings have been cited for the above proposition:
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 8 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Manager, Vijaya Bank vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 19 March, 2003

1. The Manager, Vijaya Bank, Padubidri Branch, Padubidri, D. K. District, who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 18335 of 1996 (since reported in Manager, Vijaya Bank v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [1999] 95 FJR 790 (Karn)) feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge of this court dated February 1, 1999, has preferred this writ appeal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - K Ramanna - Full Document

The Recovery Officer vs M/S Karnataka State Financila ... on 6 September, 2011

Act'provides priority to the (provident due to be paid by the employer. The said" provisions have been considered by the Division 3"~'««___V'~».Bench this Court in the case of THE MANAGER, f TFVIJATYA BANK, PADUBIDRI vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT __P_'_'%JND COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE AND OTHERS W ll reported in ILR 2003 KAR 3381 and it is held: H provisions of See. 1 1(2) that bank'iyill'i1ay--e the employer's contribution as the'.Cornmissioner'could C' raise the demand under sub--v.,eg.¢7'vTée.tion Va£3rd party only when he finds of thlelemployer in the hands of such 3rd 'notice is sent or in course of become due to the Speel;18B SFC Act has been in.terprpeted::'bvy_the v:HAon'ble_.gSupreme Court in the ease stated supra wherein after culling ou-tléthve provisions of See.48B as C1J.11'e".$:1 V('JL1t above] 'theV'Hon'ble Supreme Court has held ._ that" the'.C:11on:_obstante clause shall not only prevail over the" oon.t_rae't. but also other laws. It has also been held Court in the decision Cited by the _ 1earnedv'--.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Mangalore Catholic Co-Operative vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 3 October, 2008

Bench of this Court in the case Qf...7i'.If1E VIJAYA BANK, PAZDUBIDRI vs. PROVIDENT FUND coMna1s?s1:}1s1Ea; AND 0111151231, interpreted sec;:i1o:k:z'%'M%a--:«*.{_3) clause. (1) of the Act thus: '' Z V V % "'1'11erefoz'£:;', in ;§:x§§risio:1s sf C1ause__{i) §;.~:~z4411::1:§j:L;<§;gaj;ctio'j.;~1__(:1)_of._Sc-;:ti§x§'5;? and to sustain 1 of the COII1X:"£V1i§§1'€31'i.f::,'7(', ha &€é§1ié£1'V:o]is11ed on the dam " received the iI11pug1'1éd 'not12'ci::-- ghe Commissioner, it hoid the §'on[e:y.£o an éééctgnt of Rs.30,217.75/-
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R M Reddy - Full Document
1