Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. And ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 20 January, 2003 cites

Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

Therefore, if the question of alternative remedy comes out it will answer that the question of violation of principle of natural justice and error of jurisdiction are forthcoming before the writ Court and for the same ratio of Whirlpool Corporation's case (supra) is applicable herein. Although Mr. Gupta has cited several single Bench judgments to this Court in respect of jurisdiction of the authority in determining the question, I am of the view that such circumstances are not fit for the circumstances prevailing hereunder in respect of determining the guilt and/or of jurisdiction of appellate authorities particularly when the judgments of different Division Benches are prevailing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2032 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Organo Chemical Industries & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 July, 1979

8. According to me, since under Section 17B both are jointly and severally liable for pretaking liabilities the authority is wholly without jurisdiction in calling upon the petitioners to pay the compensation and/or damages cither in the form of the penalty or otherwise for the period prior to take over. Both learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India . Mr. Gupta has very much stressed on the said judgment to prove that damages and penalty are not the same or similar. According to me, this question is different from the question of alternative remedy. It appears from the said judgment that damages under Section 14B include a punitive sum quantified according to the circumstances of the case. The penal levy included in damages is perfectly within the area of implied powers and the legislature may, while enforcing collections, legitimately and reasonably provide for recovery of additional sums in the shape of penalty so as: to see that avoidance is obviated. Such a penal levy can take the form of damages because the reparation for the injury suffered by the default is more than the narrow computation of interest on the contribution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 334 - V R Iyer - Full Document

The Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S. Karnataka Forest Plantations ... on 5 January, 2000

In a further judgment in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Karnataka Forest Plantations Corporation Ltd. 2000-I-LLJ-1134 (Kant) held that the concept of penalty would arise only when there is a guilt. While interpreting Section 17B it was held that the transferee employer would be liable to pay the contribution for the period preceding the transfer. Section 17B cannot be interpreted to mean that the transferee employer would be liable also to pay penalty for the default committed by the previous employer during the period anterior to the transfer. The penalty as correctly interpreted cannot be treated as either contribution or as other sums due from the employer. Such an interpretation would be opposed to the principle of natural justice. Penalty cannot be saddled on somebody who is not guilty.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - A V Reddy - Full Document
1