<?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>1974 (1) TMI 114 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199673</link>
    <description>The Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 creates a moratorium only for rights, liabilities and proceedings concerning the relief undertaking itself; it does not extend immunity to the personal obligations of directors, managers or officers. In the context of provident fund defaults, the duty to remit contributions under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 rested on the employer, and persons having ultimate control over the establishment could be proceeded against for default. The statutory stay therefore did not bar criminal prosecution against the directors and an officer, who remained personally answerable for the alleged non-compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:08:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (1) TMI 114 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199673</link>
      <description>The Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 creates a moratorium only for rights, liabilities and proceedings concerning the relief undertaking itself; it does not extend immunity to the personal obligations of directors, managers or officers. In the context of provident fund defaults, the duty to remit contributions under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 rested on the employer, and persons having ultimate control over the establishment could be proceeded against for default. The statutory stay therefore did not bar criminal prosecution against the directors and an officer, who remained personally answerable for the alleged non-compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>