Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S Elysium Pharmaceuticals Limited on 30 November, 2022 cites

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Employees Provident Fund Appellate ... on 7 March, 2014

5.5 All the above decisions came to be considered by this Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal [2014 (3) GLR 2646] to hold that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal which interfered in the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, as the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Page 6 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:53:36 IST 2022 C/LPA/1261/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2022 functions in passing the order as Adjudicatory Authority under Section 14B of the Act. He could not be, therefore, treated as 'aggrieved person' within the concept of Section 7I of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail vs Spl. Director, Enforcement ... on 9 October, 2007

5.5.2 Applying the principles in Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail (supra) it was finally laid down, "7.2 The above principle applies squarely in the present case. The petitioner-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was an authority specified by the Page 7 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:53:36 IST 2022 C/LPA/1261/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2022 Central Government and functioning accordingly for the purpose of exercising powers under Section 14B of the EPF Act could not have a locus standi to challenge the order of the EPF Appellate Tribunal, which considered his order. The petitioner Authority was an adjudicatory authority who exercised power of quasi judicial nature to determine the lis. He himself could not have claimed any lis in the subject matter. For the petitioner Authority, no locus standi is available to challenge the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner Authority cannot fall within the purview of "any person aggrieved" at the instance of whom appeal under Section 7I would lie."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 101 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Director Of Enforcement, Madras vs Rama Arangannal And Anr. on 29 August, 1980

(para 13) 5.2 While holding as above, the Supreme Court referred to and relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Director of Enforcement, Madras v. Rama Arangannal [AIR 1981 Madras 80] wherein the Madras High Court held thus, "4. On the question as to the maintainability of the appeal, it is seen that the Explanation to Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 treats only the Central Government as an aggrieved party for the purpose of filing an appeal to the High Court in respect of orders passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board under that section. Therefore, only the Central Government can file and prosecute an appeal against the order of the Appellate Board, and not any other authority, In this case, the appeal has been filed by the Director of Enforcement, who Is the initial authority who passed the adjudication order against the respondents and whose order has been set aside by the Appellate Board on an appeal filed by them. Therefore, the Director of Enforcement Page 5 of 9 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:53:36 IST 2022 C/LPA/1261/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2022 cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Board merely because the Appellate Board has set its order of adjudication aside.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next