Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. M/s Hmt Limited

Decided On : Jun-27-2023

Court : Karnataka

LAW: Section 17, as EPF Act, Section 14B of EPF Act, Section 7Q, Section 14B of EPF Act, Section 14B, the EPF Act, Section 7Q of EPF Act, Section 7Q, Section 7Q, Section 14B, Section 14B of the Act, Section 14B of EPF Act, section 15, section 17, section 4, section 15, section 17, section 17, section 14B, section 14B, Section 14B, Section 32B of the Act, the EPF Act 1952, Section 14B of the Act, Article 14 of the Constitution, Section 14B, Section 14B, section 14B, Section 14B, Section 14B, Section 14B, Article 14 of the Constitution, Section 14B, Section 14B, Section 14B, Section 14B, Section 23 14B, Section 14B, Section 14B, the EPF Act, Section 14B, Section 14-B, Section 14-B of EPF Act, Section 14-B, Section 85B of the Act, Section 14B of EPF Act, Section 85B, Section 14B of EPF Act, Section 14B, Section 14B

CARDINAL: 1, 1ST, 064.2, 1ST, 064, 032, 2, 02.01.2004, 27.01.2005, 55, 24.06.2010, 11.09.2014, 11.09.2014, 11.06.2015, 11.09.2014, 17.06.2015, 6, 21.09.2015, 11.09.2014, 17.06.2015, 7, 1, 8, 451(E, 9, 4, 12, 13, 2, 5, 14, 1, 15, 32B, 1, 2, 5, 37, 2, 50, less than 50, up to 100, 17, up to, 19, 20, 21, 24.03.2023, 4, 2, 28, 29, 32B, 21.09.2015

DATE: 2023, 1913, 1961, 2015, 1913, 3 later, 1952, 1)(a, the period 1997 to 2001, 1952, 4 1952, May 1997 to August 2001, 2004, 6) of 2004, 24.06.2010, 2012, 2004, 2015, 2004, 2015, a period of, one month, 29.06.2009, more than six months, 1952 1(1979, 2012 10, under Section14B, damages.14, 1952, 1985, 1986, 1952, Less than two months 17, Two months, 22 than four months 16, Four months, less 27 than six months, Six months, Section 14B, 1818, 26th September, 2008, 29th June, 2009, 32(b)(c, 1998, 25, 2625, 11.01.2008, several years, 2008 27, 1952, 3027, 3129, 1997, 2015

ORG: UMESH M ADIGA` WRIT APPEAL No.587, PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, MARUTHI COMPLEX, MAIN, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE, PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, MARUTHI COMPLEX, MAIN, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, M/S. HMT LIMITED, HMT, KUMAR, M.N., UMESH M ADIGA J, Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries, HMT, the Employees’ Provident Funds, Provident Fund, The Representative of the Respondent, Appellant, Court, the Employee’s Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, EPFAT, EPFAT, EPFAT, Court, Court, EPFAT, EPFAT, EPFAT, Appellant, Writ Petition No.29597, Court, EPFAT, LPF, the Writ Proceedings, EPFAT, EPF, Learned, EPFAT, Schedule of the Table, the Corrigendum GSR, EPF, EPF, the PF Fund, Supreme Court, Court, Supreme Court, ORGANO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, UNION OF INDIA, Supreme Court, COORG Vs, Supreme Court, EPF, EPF, Supreme Court, Advocate for Respondent, EPF, the Respondent Company, The EPF Authority, EPF, Supreme Court, Court, Supreme Court, the EPF Authorities, EPF Authority, the Insurance Fund, the Central Provident Fund, the Central Government, the Central Board, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Scheme, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, the Central Provident Fund, the Central Government, the Official Gazette, The Central Board, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, EPF, the Central Government by Notification G.S.R., Table, Table, EPF, Table, Sections, the Employees Provident Fund.20, ORGANO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, Supreme Court, the Regional Provident Fund, the Regional Provident Fund, Regional Provident Fund, the Regional Provident Fund, the Regional Provident fund, the Regional Provident Fund, Supreme Court, Table, the Allahabad High Court, NIKETHAN UCHCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA Vs, Allahabad High Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED Vs, THE UNION OF INDIA, the Regional Provisional Fund, Supreme Court, Scheme, EPF, Supreme Court, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS, HMT LIMITED, ANOTHER5, Court, inter alia, inter alia, Court, the 5 Civil Appeal, Supreme Court, Hindustan Times Limited Vs, Union of India, Hindustan Time Limited Vs., Union of India, the Employee State Insurance Act, the Employee State Insurance Act, Judgment, Supreme Court, Horticulture Experiment Station, Coorg, Supreme Court, EPF, Judgment, Table, Table, Court, Supreme Court, Court, Supreme Court, The Respondent Company, the Government of India, Government, EPF, Company, Company, the EPF Authorities, Company, EPF, Writ Petition No.29597 of, LPF, Sd/-

GPE: India, India, India, OTHERS4, character.20

PERCENT: 93.69%, 15%, 50%, 15%, 37%, 15%, 37%, 15%, 37%, 12%, 37% to, 15%, 50%, 12%, 12%, 15%

WORK_OF_ART: Hindustan Machine Tools Private Limited, Hindustan Machine Tools, Scheme or Insurance Scheme, the Scheme of the Act, The Writ Appeal

LOC: Respondent, Respondent, Single, Single, Single, Single Judge, Para No.32A.24, Single

PRODUCT: Respondent under Section 14B of Employees’ Provident Fund, Respondent, Para, Respondent, Respondent, Respondent, Single, Para, Para, Judgment, Judgment, Judgment, Judgment, Para 32

PERSON: ATA, Appellants, Rs.250 Crores, Rate, Corrigendum G.S.R., Justice Sen A.P., it.22, Krishna Ayer, Sd/-

FAC: HORTICULTURE EXPERIMENT, the Official Gazette, Judgment, Lordship

NORP: appeal.12

TIME: 6 hours, 12 hours

ORDINAL: second, first

MONEY: 50 per cent