Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.51 seconds)Section 17 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Employees' State Insurance ... vs Hmt Ltd on 9 January, 2012
[See: 'EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION VS. HMT LTD.,', (2008) 3 SCC 35].
It has further been held that no period of limitation is
prescribed for exercise of powers under Section 14B of
the Act.
S.H. Salvekadam And Co. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 21 August, 1980
9. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal
principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in
hand. There was a delay in remitting the contribution
towards provident fund by the petitioner for a period
from March 2003 till September 2013. However,
proceeding under Section 14B of the Act were initiated
on 16.12.2013. Thus, there was an unexplained delay of
5 years in initiating the proceeding insofar as it pertains
to period from March 2003 till September 2008. The
delay in issuing notice for levy of damages under
Section 14B of the Act can only be a mitigating factor in
assessing damages but cannot be a ground to claiming
13
immunity from liability for the payment of damages as
no period of limitation is prescribed. [See: M/S S.H
SALVEKADAM & CO. VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT
FUND COMMISSIONER, 1981 (LIC) 568
(KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DB))]