<?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>1994 (11) TMI 446 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285036</link>
    <description>Damages under Section 14-B of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are intended both to penalise defaulting employers and to compensate employees for delayed remittance of contributions. Although a statutory power without a fixed limitation must be exercised within a reasonable time, reasonableness depends on the facts and the statutory object. On the stated facts, the delay in initiating proceedings was not treated as fatal because the default was detected in a large enforcement environment and the employer had retained employees&#039; contributions without payment of interest. The damages order was therefore upheld, and the delay-based challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2021 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 446 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285036</link>
      <description>Damages under Section 14-B of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are intended both to penalise defaulting employers and to compensate employees for delayed remittance of contributions. Although a statutory power without a fixed limitation must be exercised within a reasonable time, reasonableness depends on the facts and the statutory object. On the stated facts, the delay in initiating proceedings was not treated as fatal because the default was detected in a large enforcement environment and the employer had retained employees&#039; contributions without payment of interest. The damages order was therefore upheld, and the delay-based challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>