TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the protection under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred recovery proceedings and attachment action taken for provident fund dues payable by a sick industrial company, and whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Analysis: The petitioner's company was treated as a sick industrial company, but the record did not show that any rehabilitation scheme had been sanctioned or that the relevant liability had been included in any approved scheme. The demand represented employer's contribution and other statutory dues under the provident fund law, which had been unlawfully retained and were not a debt of the kind intended to be frozen by section 22. The earlier amendments to the provident fund statute also showed legislative awareness of the SICA regime. The Court further noted that the petitioner had an express statutory remedy by way of appeal under section 7-I of the provident fund law, which was not pursued, and therefore writ interference was unwarranted.
Conclusion: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not protect the petitioner against recovery of provident fund dues, and the challenge to the demand and attachment failed. The writ petition was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
