https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281235 Section 8F(3)(i) was analysed as permitting recovery from a bank only where the bank held money due to the employer or money that would become due to the employer. On the stated facts, the employer's larger debt to the bank and the hypothecation arrangement allowed the bank to appropriate insurance proceeds towards that liability, so the proceeds were not money due to the employer in the bank's hands. Section 11(2) was read harmoniously with Section 8F(3)(i), but it did not authorise recovery from a third party absent such funds. The provident fund demand was therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Jun 2019 13:18:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281235 Section 8F(3)(i) was analysed as permitting recovery from a bank only where the bank held money due to the employer or money that would become due to the employer. On the stated facts, the employer's larger debt to the bank and the hypothecation arrangement allowed the bank to appropriate insurance proceeds towards that liability, so the proceeds were not money due to the employer in the bank's hands. Section 11(2) was read harmoniously with Section 8F(3)(i), but it did not authorise recovery from a third party absent such funds. The provident fund demand was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281235