Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.75 seconds)The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952
Macson Marbles Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 11 November, 2003
In Rana Girders Limited v. Union of India2, the Apex
Court referring to its earlier judgments in M/s. Macson Marbles (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India [(2008) 15 SCC 481] and Union of India v.
SICOM Ltd.[ (2009) 2 SCC 121] and also considering the facts of
the said cases wherein purchaser company purchased entire Unit held
that it is only in those cases where the buyer had purchased the entire
unit i.e. the entire business itself, that it would be responsible to
discharge the liability of Central Excise as well. Otherwise, the
subsequent purchaser cannot be fastened with the liability relating to
the dues of the Government unless there is a specific provision in the
Statute, claiming "first charge for the purchaser". As far as the
2
. (2013) 10 SCC 746
11
KL,J
W.P. No.12348 of 2011
Central Excise Act is concerned, there was no such specific provision
as noticed in SICOM as well.
Union Of India & Ors vs Sicom Ltd. & Anr on 5 December, 2008
In Rana Girders Limited v. Union of India2, the Apex
Court referring to its earlier judgments in M/s. Macson Marbles (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India [(2008) 15 SCC 481] and Union of India v.
SICOM Ltd.[ (2009) 2 SCC 121] and also considering the facts of
the said cases wherein purchaser company purchased entire Unit held
that it is only in those cases where the buyer had purchased the entire
unit i.e. the entire business itself, that it would be responsible to
discharge the liability of Central Excise as well. Otherwise, the
subsequent purchaser cannot be fastened with the liability relating to
the dues of the Government unless there is a specific provision in the
Statute, claiming "first charge for the purchaser". As far as the
2
. (2013) 10 SCC 746
11
KL,J
W.P. No.12348 of 2011
Central Excise Act is concerned, there was no such specific provision
as noticed in SICOM as well.
Indus Agro Products vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 March, 2006
In Indus Agro Products v. Union of India3, a Division
Bench of Bombay High Court referring to Sections - 17B and 11 (2)
of the Act, 1952 and also on examination of the facts of the case
therein that the petitioner therein has purchased the property
conducted in an auction under the provisions of the Act, 1951, held
that Section 17-B of the Act, 1952 comes into operation where an
employer in relation to an establishment transfers that establishment in
whole or in part by sale, gift, lease or license or in any other manner
whatsoever. In such a case, both the employer and the person to
whom the establishment is transferred are jointly and severally liable
to pay the contribution and other sum due from the employer under
the provisions of the Act or of any scheme framed thereunder. The
liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets
obtained by him by such transfer. The submission was that Section -
17B applies to a situation where a transfer of establishment has taken
place by the employer meaning thereby that there is a voluntary
transfer of assets. Even if the submission were to be accepted, Section
3
. 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 136
12
KL,J
The Maharashtra State Co-Operative ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 6 September, 2018
12. A Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Maharashtra
State Cooperative Bank Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner4 held that by virtue of the non obstante clause
contained in Section - 11 (2) of the Act, 1952, any amount due from
an employer shall be deemed to be first charge on the assets of the
establishment and is payable in priority to all other debts including the
debts due to a bank, which falls in the category of secured creditor. It
also held that Section - 11 of the Act, 1952 is declaratory in nature.
M/S Isha Marbles vs Bihar State Electricity Board on 3 February, 1995
18. He has also placed reliance on the decision in Isha
Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board9, which is with regard to
recovery of electricity dues, and on examination of facts of the case
therein, the Apex Court held that the Electricity Department cannot
claim consumption charges of previous consumer from the auction
purchaser of the premises. In the said case, auction purchaser has not
consumed the power and the auction purchaser came to purchase the
property after disconnection. Therefore, facts of the said case are
different to the facts of the present case.
K.C. Ninan vs Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. on 19 May, 2023
However, in a recent
judgment, the Apex Court in K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State electricity
Board10 referring to its earlier judgment in Isha Marbles9 held that
8
. Order in CMA No.1201 of 2018 & CMP Nos.9841 & 21435 of 2018, decided on 09.03.2021.
9
. (1995) 2 SCC 648
10
. Civil Appeal Nos.2109-2110 of 2004, decided on 19.05.2023
16
KL,J
W.P. No.12348 of 2011
electricity dues can be recovered from the present owner of the
premises.