<?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>Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102494</link>
    <description>Substantial compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was found where defendants received the injunction application and plaint, relevant annexures were available, and service occurred before the returnable date, enabling an effective response; the interim injunction therefore continued. The exempted establishment had a prima facie civil claim over alleged provident fund trust defalcation, and statutory provident fund inquiry powers did not exclude civil court jurisdiction. Non-disclosure of a contemplated complaint and later FIR was not material suppression because it would not have affected interim relief; parallel civil and criminal proceedings could continue. The High Court could direct an SFIO investigation where the alleged diversion concerned company affairs, multiple units, and social-security funds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2026 10:23:13 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2026 10:23:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=916109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102494</link>
      <description>Substantial compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was found where defendants received the injunction application and plaint, relevant annexures were available, and service occurred before the returnable date, enabling an effective response; the interim injunction therefore continued. The exempted establishment had a prima facie civil claim over alleged provident fund trust defalcation, and statutory provident fund inquiry powers did not exclude civil court jurisdiction. Non-disclosure of a contemplated complaint and later FIR was not material suppression because it would not have affected interim relief; parallel civil and criminal proceedings could continue. The High Court could direct an SFIO investigation where the alleged diversion concerned company affairs, multiple units, and social-security funds.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2026 10:23:13 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>