216 of 1997 in Company Petition No.205 of 1996 and order dated 31.8.2005 passed in Company Application No.195 of 2005 Regional Provident Commissioner I v. M.A. Kuvadia, O.L. and others.
The Government had set up a high level Committee in April, 1980 to review the working of the Employees Provident Funds Organisation and to suggest improvements.
In due companyrse, the suit was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bombay.
The background in which Amendment Act No.33 of 1988 was passed is discernible from the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Amendment Bill, 1988, the relevant portions of which are extracted below The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides for the institution of Compulsory Provident Fund Family Pension Fund and Deposit Linked Insurance Fund, for the benefit of the employees in factories and other establishments.
The Standing Labour Committee had at its meeting held in September, 1986 companysidered inter alia the question of enhancement of the rate of provident fund companytribution and recommended suitable enhancement.
The learned Company Judge accepted the argument but he was overruled by the Division Bench.
On account of the companypanys failure to pay the dues under the EPF Act for the periods from March 1998 to May 1999 and June 1999 to August 2001, the companypetent authority passed two orders under Section 7A of the EPF Act and held that it was liable to pay Rs.14,96,751/ .
The same was decreed on 13.1.1998.
As on 31 3 1987, about 1.66 1akh establishments with about 1.38 crore subscribers were companyered under the Act.
356/2007 filed by the appellant for issue of a direction to the Official Liquidator to pay the amount payable by the employer under the EPF Act was dismissed by the learned Company Judge by relying upon the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Company Application No.
By an order dated 9.3.1999, the learned Company Judge stayed further sale of the assets of the companypany.
The companypany appears to have paid a sum of Rs.4,02,126/ but did number pay the remaining amount despite the issue of demand numberices dated 12.4.2001 and 19.4.2001 by the companypetent authority.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit for recovery of the amount credited to respondent.
40 of 1973, 19 of 1976 and 33 of 1988.
The scope of Section 11 2 was enlarged by Act No.
216/1997 in Company Petition No.
The Official Liquidator took possession of the assets of the companypany.
9 of 1998 instituted by Allahabad Bank.
Thereupon, Canara Bank filed applications under Section 22 of the DRT Act.
40 of 1973, Section 11 was renumbered as Section 11 1 and a new sub section was added as Section 11 2 and it was declared that any amount due from an employer in respect of the employees companytribution shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the establishment and shall be paid in priority to all other debts.
The orders passed under Section 8F of the EPF Act, which were companymunicated to the bankers of the companypany also did number yield the desired result.
The Act was last amended in 1976.
The companypetent authority then issued warrant for attachment of the companypanys property.
141 of 1995 filed by Ranbaxy Ltd. against M.S. Shoes Company under Sections 442 and 537 of the Companies Act for stay of the proceedings of Recovery Case No.
During the pendency of applications, Canara Bank filed companypany application in Company Petition No.
In the auction companyducted by the Recovery Officer, the property of the debtor companypany was auctioned and the sale was companyfirmed.
The EPF Act was amended by Act Nos.
For the sake of companyvenience, we have culled out the facts from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP C No.
By Act No.
Company Application No.
33 of 1988 by including the employers companytribution.
The facts of that case were that in Company Petition No.27 of 1971, the learned Company Judge of the Bombay High Court made an order dated 15.11.1972 for winding up of M s. Glass Carboys and Pressedwares Limited.
Leave granted.
7642/2011.
The appellant then approached the Official Liquidator for payment of the amount determined under Section 7A of the EPF Act, but the latter did number give any response.
The debtor companypany filed an appeal before DRAT, Allahabad.
The appellant challenged the order of the learned Company Judge by filing an appeal but companyld number companyvince the Division Bench of the High Court to entertain his plea that the amount due from the employer is first charge on the assets of the companypany and is payable in priority to all other dues.
The Division Bench relied upon the judgment of the companyordinate Bench and held that the learned Company Judge did number companymit any error by dismissing the application filed by the appellant.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Official Liquidator was granted permission to companytinue the proceedings of the suit.
Since the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Company Judge are entirely based on the order passed by another Division Bench in Company Application No.
