<?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>2006 (2) TMI 687 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200734</link>
    <description>Section 93-A of the Employees State Insurance Act applies only where the employer himself transfers a factory or establishment by sale, gift, lease, licence or similar voluntary mode. A sale effected by a secured creditor under statutory powers in an auction is a transfer by operation of law, not a transfer by the defaulting employer, so the auction purchaser does not inherit the predecessor&#039;s ESI arrears merely by acquiring the property. The liability remains with the original employer, and recovery must be pursued against the erstwhile owners in accordance with law; on that basis, the demand and recovery action against the purchaser was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2018 15:51:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 687 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200734</link>
      <description>Section 93-A of the Employees State Insurance Act applies only where the employer himself transfers a factory or establishment by sale, gift, lease, licence or similar voluntary mode. A sale effected by a secured creditor under statutory powers in an auction is a transfer by operation of law, not a transfer by the defaulting employer, so the auction purchaser does not inherit the predecessor&#039;s ESI arrears merely by acquiring the property. The liability remains with the original employer, and recovery must be pursued against the erstwhile owners in accordance with law; on that basis, the demand and recovery action against the purchaser was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>