Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (3.22 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Section 11 in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors on 21 April, 1969
The recovery proceedings were initiated after 12
years and they were quashed solely on the ground of
unreasonable delay relying upon Patil Raghav Natha's case
[1969 (@) SCC 187] and other cases.
Ram Chand vs Union Of India (N.P. Singh, J) on 30 September, 1993
The said judgment has been applied in
matters relating to section 6 to the Land Acquisition Act in
a large number of cases, which were all referred to recently
in Ram Chand vs. Union of India [1994 (1) SCC 45]. In our
view, this line of cases cannot ordinarily apply to monies
withheld by a defaulter, who holds them in trust.
K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs R.M. Gandhi And Ors. on 20 November, 1992
The view taken by the learned Single Judge of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in 1965 has also been rightly
dissented by the Delhi High Court in Birla Cotton Spinning &
Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (CWP 390/78) dated
29.7.83: by the Gujarat High Court in Gandhidham case [1987
LIC 659]; the Patna High Court in M/S Inter State Transport
Agency, Sitamarhi vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Patna [1984 LIC 940] and the Allahabad High Court in The
Northern India Press Works vs. Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, U.P. & Others [1983 LIC 1314 (All)].
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs M/S. Ict. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd on 22 November, 1994
The said judgment was
reversed in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs.
K.T.Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. [1995 (1) SCC 181] by this Court
holding that while it was true that normally powers for the
exercised within reasonable time, the order in that case was
not liable to be struck down not only because in Maharashtra
there were 22, 189 establishments in 1985 - which made if
difficult to monitor delays - but also because the monies
must have been used (by the employer) for its own purpose
and that too without paying interest, at the cost of those
for whose benefit it was meant. Any different stand would,
it was held, encourage the employers to thwart the object of
the Act, which could not be permitted. We are in respectful
agreement with the above observations.
Inter State Transport Agency vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 11 January, 1983
The view taken by the learned Single Judge of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in 1965 has also been rightly
dissented by the Delhi High Court in Birla Cotton Spinning &
Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (CWP 390/78) dated
29.7.83: by the Gujarat High Court in Gandhidham case [1987
LIC 659]; the Patna High Court in M/S Inter State Transport
Agency, Sitamarhi vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Patna [1984 LIC 940] and the Allahabad High Court in The
Northern India Press Works vs. Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, U.P. & Others [1983 LIC 1314 (All)].
Super Processors vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 October, 1991
)]; M/s Super Processors vs. Union
of India & another [1992 Lab. I.C.808 (Bom.)].