Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.88 seconds)
Navnilal K. Shah (Dr.) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 11 July, 2003 cites

Union Of India And Others vs Super Processors on 12 August, 1992

19. Applying the law as discussed above to the facts of the case in hand it is apparent that as regards the period from August, 1979 to February, 1992, the authorities have levied 10% per annum compound interest to recover the loss of interest occurred to organization for the said period. Apparently, there is no such provision in Section 14B which could empower the authorities to claim the compound interest. The guidelines nowhere provide for 10% compound interest. However, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court on the point of exercise of discretion depending upon the facts of each case, no fault can be found for imposing the interest for the loss to the organization and considering the facts of the case in hand, the imposition of interest for the said period could have been at the rate of 10% per annum but certainly not at the rate of 10% compound interest along with the damages at the rate of 10%. Justification for imposing such reduced penalty for the said period is merely that the decision in the inquiry under Section 7A was pronounced in April, 1992. However, the dispute which was sought to be raised regarding applicability of the said Act to the establishment of the petitioner was not on account of the point of law as such, but on the contention that the petitioner had employed less than 20 persons at any given point of time and the basis for such contention was that the petitioner had employed 19 full-time employees and 3 trainees. Being so, the fact that the establishment had availed the services of more than 20 persons during the pre-discovery period was to the knowledge of the employer and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court regarding the obligation of the employer to comply with his duties enumerated under the said Act from the time when the said Act applies to the establishment and considering that the petitioner had full knowledge about the number of persons, whose services were availed for running the establishment, the said imposition of damages with simple interest even for the pre-discovery period cannot be found fault with. Nevertheless, since the appropriate decision on a dispute raised by the petitioner was delivered in May, 1992, the petitioner would be justified in contending for the reduction in percentage of damages and the exercise of discretion in that regard by the authorities.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - S V Manohar - Full Document

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

10. Taking note of a conflict of opinions between different High Courts as to the meaning of the word "damages" under Section 14-B of the said Act, it was observed by the Apex Court in Organo Chemical's case that those High Courts who had taken the view that the damages to be imposed under Section 14-B should have correlation with the loss suffered and that the damages under Section 14-B are intended to compensate the loss to the beneficiaries of the Scheme had overlooked that the term "damages" under the said provisions of law does not mean in the realm of Contract or Tort but the word has to be given its true meaning, in consonance with the objects and purpose of the legislation and, therefore, it was ruled that:--
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 334 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next