2011 (3) TMI 1719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CE G.S. SINGHVI AND MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY For the Petitioner : Mr.Chinmoy Khaladkar, Adv. For the Respondent :  Mr. Jay Savla,Adv., Ms.Meenakshi Ogra, Adv., Ms.Renuka Sahu, Adv. O R D E R Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court declaring that the dues of the workers payable under Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, `t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er and the State of Karnataka along with other secured creditors and workers of the Company on pari pasu basis in terms of Section 529-A of the 1956 Act. Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Appeal No.658 of 2004 which was allowed by the Division Bench on the premises that non obstante clause contained in Section 529-A of the 1956 Act will prevail over Section 38-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Indore ­ (2002) 10 SCC 441; Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank ­ (2000) 4 SCC 406 and approved the ratio of the judgment of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Recovery Officer as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Kerala Financial Corporation ­ ILR (2002) 3 Ker 4, which held that the primacy of the first charge created under Section 11(2) of the Employees Provident Fund&n....