Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.27 seconds)
Siddharth Kejriwal vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 10 November, 1994 cites

State Of Bihar vs Deokaran Nenshi on 24 August, 1972

"The decision of this court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, , to the effect that failure to furnish returns before the due date is not a continuing offence must be confined to cases of failure to furnish returns. It cannot be extended to cases like those before us in which the contravention is not of a procedural or formal nature and goes against the very grain of the statute under consideration."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 226 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wodiyar vs Enforcement Officer, Mysore on 4 May, 1993

33. Sri Papanna strongly relied on the decision in Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wodiyar v. Enforcement Officer , in support of his contention that a director of a company can be prosecuted. That was a case, where an offence under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act had been committed by a company. The appellant was one of the directors of the company who was prosecuted along with others. He contended that he was merely a director of the company, that he was neither in charge of the company nor was responsible to comply with the provisions of the Act and that as such the complaint against him was to be quashed. It was also contended that no specific averments were made in the complaint making him responsible for the management of the factory or the liability to comply with the Act and the schemes. In that case in the complaint it was specifically stated that accused Nos. 2 to 6 including the appellant were the persons in charge of the said establishment and were responsible for the conduct of its business. Further, form No. 5A which was produced in the case clearly indicated that the appellant was one of the persons who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment. It is on the basis of those facts the Supreme Court held that a director of the private company who is neither an occupier nor a manager can be prosecuted under section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for violation of the Provident Fund Schemes. I do not see how this decision can be of any help to the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 41 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next