https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458442 The court quashed the order demanding damages for late payment of contributions, holding that the BIFR order, which extended the cut-off date for outstanding dues to 31.3.2003, had statutory force and was binding on all parties. The respondents' refusal to waive damages was deemed arbitrary and against the law, as the BIFR order aimed at company reconstruction and had ESI Corporation's consent. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, affirming that the respondents could not rely on ESI regulations to contravene the BIFR directive. en-us Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Oct 2024 11:45:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458442 The court quashed the order demanding damages for late payment of contributions, holding that the BIFR order, which extended the cut-off date for outstanding dues to 31.3.2003, had statutory force and was binding on all parties. The respondents' refusal to waive damages was deemed arbitrary and against the law, as the BIFR order aimed at company reconstruction and had ESI Corporation's consent. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, affirming that the respondents could not rely on ESI regulations to contravene the BIFR directive. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458442