<?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>2015 (3) TMI 549 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257615</link>
    <description>Sections 529, 529A and 530 of the Companies Act are explained as creating pari passu and preferential rights for workmen and secured creditors, with the concept of &quot;workmen&quot; borrowed from the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Contract labour is not automatically absorbed as employees merely because a notification is issued under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970; the relationship can be recognised only if the contract is found to be sham, nominal, or a camouflage, justifying piercing of the veil. On the material then available, the Court noted that no finding had been returned on the genuineness of the contracts, so the claims required fresh re-adjudication after hearing the parties and examining the contracts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:40:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 549 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257615</link>
      <description>Sections 529, 529A and 530 of the Companies Act are explained as creating pari passu and preferential rights for workmen and secured creditors, with the concept of &quot;workmen&quot; borrowed from the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Contract labour is not automatically absorbed as employees merely because a notification is issued under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970; the relationship can be recognised only if the contract is found to be sham, nominal, or a camouflage, justifying piercing of the veil. On the material then available, the Court noted that no finding had been returned on the genuineness of the contracts, so the claims required fresh re-adjudication after hearing the parties and examining the contracts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>