https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106820 Provident fund dues were treated as protected statutory employee entitlements, so section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar recovery proceedings against a sick industrial company. The Court reasoned that such dues stand apart from ordinary creditor claims and should not be indefinitely deferred merely because BIFR proceedings are pending. The subsidiary company's separate corporate personality was also preserved, and the provident fund recovery provisions were held not to fasten its liability on the holding company merely because of shareholding or control. Recovery notices and attachment against the holding company were therefore unsustainable absent a clear statutory basis. en-us Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:54:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106820 Provident fund dues were treated as protected statutory employee entitlements, so section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar recovery proceedings against a sick industrial company. The Court reasoned that such dues stand apart from ordinary creditor claims and should not be indefinitely deferred merely because BIFR proceedings are pending. The subsidiary company's separate corporate personality was also preserved, and the provident fund recovery provisions were held not to fasten its liability on the holding company merely because of shareholding or control. Recovery notices and attachment against the holding company were therefore unsustainable absent a clear statutory basis. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106820