<?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>2025 (11) TMI 1331 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781863</link>
    <description>A statutory first charge created by the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 prevails over a later non obstante priority clause under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The secured creditor may proceed with sale of the mortgaged assets, but the sale proceeds must first satisfy provident fund dues, including contribution-related liability for interest and damages, before any balance is applied to the secured debt. The workmen&#039;s unpaid wage claims were not quantified and had been rejected on delay, leaving them to seek determination before the appropriate forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=866446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1331 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781863</link>
      <description>A statutory first charge created by the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 prevails over a later non obstante priority clause under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The secured creditor may proceed with sale of the mortgaged assets, but the sale proceeds must first satisfy provident fund dues, including contribution-related liability for interest and damages, before any balance is applied to the secured debt. The workmen&#039;s unpaid wage claims were not quantified and had been rejected on delay, leaving them to seek determination before the appropriate forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>