Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Niky Tasha (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Regional P.F. Commissioner And Ors. on 11 May, 1994 cites

Kanpur Textile Finishing Mills vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 15 November, 1954

13. I am in complete and respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Star of Gujarat Textiles Mills Ltd's case (supra) and , therefore following the said view, remit this case to the Regional Provident Commissioner to consider the whole question afresh taking note of the norms set down. Therefore, by this pronouncement the impugned order to the extent it imposes penalty is set aside, of course, with liberty to respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

V. Ramaswamy Iyengar And K.R. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 May, 1960

Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court also relied upon a single Bench decision of the Madras High Court in K.A. Subramaniam v. The Commissioner, The Regional Provident Fund, Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry States (1979 LIC 981) and held: (p-1024) ".....The authority empowered to impose damages has to first of all decide whether the facts of a case warrant the imposition of damages. If his assessment of the situation results in a finding that imposition of damages is called for, then he has to determine the quantum of damages with reference to relevant factors such as the loss suffered by the affected party, the hardship caused to the beneficiaries, the efforts taken by the enforcement machinery to collect the defaulted payments etc. There is, therefore, a clear line of distinction between imposition of penalty which is penal in nature and imposition of damages which is compensatory in nature....."
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 203 - Full Document

Nat Organic Chemicals Industries vs B.L. Industries on 14 January, 1988

"Here, we find that it is not a case of total omission to make the contributions. There had been only delayed contributions. The periods are different and the days of delay are also different. A glance at the statement of damages, annexed to the impugned proceedings, shows that the days of delay range from a minimum of 7 days to a maximum of 47 days, but, a flat rat of 25% has been adopted by the 1st respondent; and certainly, we cannot commend the impugned proceedings on the ground that the application of the norms, as set down by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, referred to above, has been done. This only exposes lack of application of mind on the part of the 1 st respondent."
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - B N Kirpal - Full Document
1