<?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>1969 (3) TMI 103 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300102</link>
    <description>A director of a factory-owned company may be treated as a principal employer under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act where the statutory definition extends to the owner or occupier, and internal corporate responsibility does not defeat liability; the conviction on that count was upheld. Failure to pay special contribution within time and to file the prescribed return as required by the Act and notification attracted liability, and the conviction on those counts was upheld. Non-submission of the contribution-card return under Regulation 26 was treated as a technical breach, with conviction maintained but no separate sentence sustained; the revisional challenge otherwise failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2022 12:34:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (3) TMI 103 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300102</link>
      <description>A director of a factory-owned company may be treated as a principal employer under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act where the statutory definition extends to the owner or occupier, and internal corporate responsibility does not defeat liability; the conviction on that count was upheld. Failure to pay special contribution within time and to file the prescribed return as required by the Act and notification attracted liability, and the conviction on those counts was upheld. Non-submission of the contribution-card return under Regulation 26 was treated as a technical breach, with conviction maintained but no separate sentence sustained; the revisional challenge otherwise failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>