<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (1) TMI 388 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109339</link>
    <description>Deducted employee wages retained by an employer and payable to a co-operative society are not protected by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, so recovery proceedings are not barred. The Court also treated the employer&#039;s duty to remit the deducted sums as one carrying personal responsibility under section 49 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and extended liability to directors in control where no effective nomination or shielding was shown. On service, the proceedings were sustained against petitioners who were duly served, but were set aside and remanded for petitioners against whom proper service was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 388 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109339</link>
      <description>Deducted employee wages retained by an employer and payable to a co-operative society are not protected by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, so recovery proceedings are not barred. The Court also treated the employer&#039;s duty to remit the deducted sums as one carrying personal responsibility under section 49 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and extended liability to directors in control where no effective nomination or shielding was shown. On service, the proceedings were sustained against petitioners who were duly served, but were set aside and remanded for petitioners against whom proper service was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109339</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>