order passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal (for short "EPFAT") dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure P/18).
2. 2nd respondent - company was established ... damages is concerned,
2nd respondent-company filed an appeal before the EPFAT and appeal was
dismissed on 17.08.2011. Consequently, 2nd respondent - company filed
rectification application
Employees'
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "EPFAT").
Respondent No.1-company could not remit Employees
Provident Fund timely during ... preferred an appeal before the EPFAT. EPFAT decided appeal filed by
respondent No.1 on 18.3.2011 by reducing the levy of damages and interest
order
of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short 'EPFAT')
dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-1).
2. Petitioner-Institute is covered under ... before EPFAT. EPFAT passed interim order directing the petitioner to
deposit 40% of the determined amount with the Tribunal within 30 days of
the order
order
of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short 'EPFAT')
dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure P-1).
2. Petitioner-Institute is covered under ... before EPFAT. EPFAT passed interim order directing the petitioner to
deposit 50% of the determined amount with the Tribunal within 30 days of
the order
Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'EPFAT').
Respondent-M/s Hari Darshan Singh BKO (Brick Kiln Owner) was issued ... furnishing 7-A proceedings respondent proceeded
to file appeal before the EPFAT in the month of August, 2010. Appeal was
decided on 12.05.2014. EPFAT
order
of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short 'EPFAT')
dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-1).
2. Petitioner-Institute is covered under ... before EPFAT. EPFAT passed interim order directing the petitioner to
deposit 40% of the determined amount with the Tribunal within 30 days of
the order
Sachdeva Maternity & General ... vs Presiding Officer Epfat And Anr on 20 February, 2019
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal , Manjari Nehru Kaul ... Sachdeva Maternity & General Hospital ...... Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, EPFAT & anr. ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Waryam Singh Hospital vs Presiding Officer, Epfat, New Delhi on 18 January, 2018
Author: P.B. Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT
petition is directed against an interlocutory order passed by
the Presiding Officer, EPFAT dated 28.02.2017 (Annex P-7) staying the
recovery of the amount ... Section 7-I of the EPF&MP Act. They submit that
EPFAT vide interlocutory order dated 28.02.2017 has granted limited stay
regarding damages
sufficient explanation in legal language. As per Rule 7 of the EPFAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1997, the appeal can be filed within 60 days ... EPFAT has the power to further condone the delay of 60 days if sufficient
cause is shown. Accordingly the maximum delay which can be condoned
