<?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>1996 (10) TMI 499 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191769</link>
    <description>Section 14-B of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 authorises recovery of damages for an employer&#039;s default in remitting provident fund contributions within time, and serves to enforce compliance with a welfare statute protecting employee benefits. The authority may assess the quantum of damages, but outside the limited sick industrial company exception tied to rehabilitation, it cannot waive the levy altogether. Continued deposit of the money with the University did not excuse failure to comply with the statutory duty to deposit it in the Fund. Damages were therefore recoverable, and the challenge to their levy failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:11:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 499 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191769</link>
      <description>Section 14-B of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 authorises recovery of damages for an employer&#039;s default in remitting provident fund contributions within time, and serves to enforce compliance with a welfare statute protecting employee benefits. The authority may assess the quantum of damages, but outside the limited sick industrial company exception tied to rehabilitation, it cannot waive the levy altogether. Continued deposit of the money with the University did not excuse failure to comply with the statutory duty to deposit it in the Fund. Damages were therefore recoverable, and the challenge to their levy failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>