Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether provident fund dues under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 have priority over the claim of a State Financial Corporation secured by mortgage under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and whether the statutory first charge under the provident fund law overrides the corporation's prior security interest.
Analysis: The provident fund statute creates a first charge on the assets of the establishment and gives the dues priority over all other debts notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. That later and specific legislative mandate was treated as expressing Parliament's intention to protect workers' terminal social security dues. The overriding clause in the State Financial Corporations Act was held not to defeat this later enactment. The reasoning also rejected reliance on the mortgagee's status as transferee for value and on provisions of the Income Tax Act, since those did not confer a substantive priority comparable to the first charge created by the provident fund law.
Conclusion: Provident fund dues rank in priority over the secured debt of the State Financial Corporation, and the recovery notices and prohibitory orders issued for realization of those dues were valid.