Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.23 seconds)Section 7Q in The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
The Chairman, Sebi vs Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr on 23 May, 2006
20. Above being the position, the plea that Rules
96-ZQ and 96-ZO have a concept of discretion inbuilt
cannot be sustained. Dilip N. Shroff case [Dilip N.
Shroff v. CIT, (2007) 6 SCC 329] was not correctly
decided but SEBI case [SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund,
(2006) 5 SCC 361] has analysed the legal position in
the correct perspectives. The reference is answered.
The matter shall now be placed before the Division
Bench to deal with the matter in the light of what has
been stated above, only so far as the cases where
challenge to vires of Rule 967-Q(5) are concerned. In
all other cases the orders of the High Court or the
Tribunal, as the case may be, are quashed and the
matter remitted to it for disposal in the light of present
judgments. Appeals except Civil Appeals Nos. 3397 &
3398-99 of 2003, 4096 of 2004, 3388 & 5277 of 2006,
4316, 4317, 675 and 1420 of 2007 and appeal relating
to SLP (C) No. 21751 of 2007 are allowed and the
excepted appeals shall now be placed before the
Division Bench for disposal."
Section 10 in The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Dharamendra Textile Processors ... on 29 September, 2008
19. Taking note of the three-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court in Union of India v.
Dharamendra Textile Processors [Union of India v.
Dharamendra Textile Processors, (2008) 13 SCC
369] , which is indeed binding on us, we are of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.848 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025
52/55
considered view that any default or delay in the
payment of EPF contribution by the employer under
the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of
damages under Section 14-B of the 1952 Act and
mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for
imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil
obligations/liabilities.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
Dilip N. Shroff vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 18 May, 2007
16. The judgment on which the learned counsel
for the appellant(s) has placed reliance i.e. ESI Corpn. [ESI
Corpn. v. HMT Ltd., (2008) 3 SCC 35 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S)
558] , the Division Bench in ignorance of the settled judicial
binding precedent of which a detailed reference has been
made, while examining the scope and ambit of Section 85-B of
the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948 which
is in pari materia with Section 14-B of the 1952 Act placing
reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in
Dilip N. Shroff [Dilip N. Shroff v. CIT, (2007) 6 SCC 329]
held that for the breach of civil obligations/liabilities,
existence of mens rea or actus reus to be a necessary
ingredient for levy of damages and/or the quantum thereof.