<?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>2019 (2) TMI 602 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374975</link>
    <description>The sanctioned rehabilitation scheme expressly contemplated consideration of waiver of provident fund penal damages, and the petitioner had already discharged the provident fund dues and interest, leaving only the damages demand. As the High Court had directed the competent provident fund authority to consider the waiver request in accordance with law, the Tribunal did not itself grant relief but required the Central Provident Fund Commissioner to process the request expeditiously. If the application was pending, it was to be considered without delay; if necessary, the petitioner was to be told to submit a fresh application. The authority was directed to decide the matter under the sanctioned scheme and communicate its decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:07:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 602 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374975</link>
      <description>The sanctioned rehabilitation scheme expressly contemplated consideration of waiver of provident fund penal damages, and the petitioner had already discharged the provident fund dues and interest, leaving only the damages demand. As the High Court had directed the competent provident fund authority to consider the waiver request in accordance with law, the Tribunal did not itself grant relief but required the Central Provident Fund Commissioner to process the request expeditiously. If the application was pending, it was to be considered without delay; if necessary, the petitioner was to be told to submit a fresh application. The authority was directed to decide the matter under the sanctioned scheme and communicate its decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>