https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126967 Pendency of BIFR proceedings did not bar recovery of Employees' State Insurance contributions, because section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act was held not to prevent enforcement of dues under the ESI Act. A writ challenge to a section 45A determination was not maintained where the statutory dispute remedy under section 75 was available and not pursued, leaving the determination enforceable for recovery. Interest on delayed contribution was also held payable as a statutory and automatic liability under section 39(5), unaffected by prior litigation, stay orders, or requests for instalments. The statutory recovery proceedings and interest demand were sustained. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126967 Pendency of BIFR proceedings did not bar recovery of Employees' State Insurance contributions, because section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act was held not to prevent enforcement of dues under the ESI Act. A writ challenge to a section 45A determination was not maintained where the statutory dispute remedy under section 75 was available and not pursued, leaving the determination enforceable for recovery. Interest on delayed contribution was also held payable as a statutory and automatic liability under section 39(5), unaffected by prior litigation, stay orders, or requests for instalments. The statutory recovery proceedings and interest demand were sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126967