Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: provident funds act 1925 section 6 · Page 1 of about 1,533 results (0.102 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Nov 26 1959

The Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commission ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-26-1959

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 - Sections 1(3), 2(1), 5, 5(1), 5(2), 6, 6(1), 6(2), 15, 15(1), 15(2), 16, 17 and 19A; Trusts Act, 1882 - Sections 83; Indian Companies Act, 1913; Provident Funds Act, 1925; Provident Funds Rules; Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; Constitution of India - Articles 19, 226 and 227; Charitable Trusts (Validation) Act, 1954

Reported in : AIR1961Bom157; (1960)62BOMLR425; [1960(1)FLR63]; ILR1960Bom580

existence. That Scheme may be a Scheme recognised under the Indian Income-tax Act or a Scheme under the Provident Funds Act, 1925. Whatever that may be, if there is already in existence a Provident Fund Scheme then the appropriate paragraph … is concerned. Before coming to that question we would refer to the other relevant sections in the Act. Section 6 Sub-section (1) provides that: 'The contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall be

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 12 1992

Sharadamma Vs. Jayashree

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-12-1992

Subject : Family

Acts : Provident Funds Act, 1925 - Sections 5; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 4(1) and 6(1)

Reported in : II(1992)DMC452; ILR1992KAR2277

to receive the aforesaid sum; therefore, in the light of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 the first plaintiff is entitled to receive it absolutely to the exclusion of others, as such the other … 1st plaintiff has not claimed that she is entitled to receive the gratuity amount absolutely. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that each employee, who

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 07 1963

Thanjavur Permanent Bank Ltd. Vs. Dharmasamvardhani Ammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-07-1963

Subject : Labour and IndustrialCivil

Acts : Provident Funds Act, 1925 - Sections 2, 3 and 8; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 8, Rule 6

Reported in : AIR1964Mad108; (1965)IILLJ50Mad

first point of the appellant.5. We consider that the second point of the appellant is well founded. The Provident Funds Act, 1925 was enacted with the object of amending and consolidating the law relating to Government and other provident funds. … a set off, so to speak, in the present suit.Order VIII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure' Code, no doubt, allows a defendant to claim … to institutions other than those mentioned in the schedule to the Act. The Act contains also a definition section, which, among other things, defines a, 'dependent' to include the wife of a subscriber.Section 3(1) affords protection to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

May 11 2001

Mst. Ahmadeen Begum and Others Vs. Abdul Qayum Khan and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-11-2001

Subject : FamilyCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order XLVII, Rule 1; Provident Funds Act, 1925 - Sections 3, 4, 5 and 5(1); Insurance Act, 1938 - Sections 39 and 39(6); Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952; Government Saving Certificates Act, 1959 - Sections 6, 7 and 8

Reported in : [2001(90)FLR348]; 2001LabIC3906; (2001)2UPLBEC1550

belong to the nominee.6. In Shaik Dawood and others (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court interpreted the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act (Act 19 of 1952) and it was held that the nominee of the provident … that this Court did not consider the effect of the provisions of Section 5 of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 and as such, the judgment of this Court is liable to be reviewed. He has relied upon various

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 09 2012

S.Sandhya Vs. the Chief General Manager and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-09-2012

Subject : Insurance

Acts : Insurance Act 1938 - Section 39(6)(1); Hindu Succession Act - Section 8; Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act - Section 24; Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 - Section 10(2), 5 ; Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 ; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 16, 17; Insurance Act - Section 39; Hindu Marriage Act. - Section 11; Succession Act, 1925 - Section 372; Central Pension Rules - Rule 10; Group Insurance Scheme, 1980 ; Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules - Rule 50(1)(b), 51, 52 and 53; Constitution of India - Articles 226

the nominee would not be entitled to the right conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 5 of the Provident Funds Act and the rules framed thereunder, the … decision of the Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and Others, reported in 2009 (10) SCC 680, submitted that the 4th respondent, brother of the deceased, cannot be a recipient of the retiral benefits and

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 10 1996

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indocean Engineer P. Ltd.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-10-1996

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(38), 28 and 36(1)

Reported in : [1997]225ITR201(AP)

Rule 1 specifically lays down that Part A has no application 'to any provident fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925 applies'. As contemplated in section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act concerning the limits to the contributions to provident … Sections 32(c) (As amended by Section 3 of Amendment Act, 2005] & 10 & General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 6: [G.S. Singhvi, CJ, Dr.G. Yethirajulu, Ramesh Ranganathan, G.Bhavani Prasad, C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, JJ] Exemption of building from applicability

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 13 1963

State of Orissa Vs. V.V. Apparao

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Mar-13-1963

Subject : Civil

Acts : Provident Funds Act, 1925 - Sections 6, 7 and 8; Madras Local Boards Act, 1928; Local Board Provident Fund Rules - Rule 22; Orissa Local Funds Audit Act, 1948 - Sections 9; Madras Local Boards Act, 1920

Reported in : AIR1963Ori181

Officer of the iistrict Board. Ext. J dated 25-5-57 but till now nothing further has been done.The President Funds Act 1925 had been extended to Provident Funds under the control of local authority by appropriate notifications under Section 8 … to a subscriber from the Provident Fund account should he paid as soon as possible after his retirement. Section 6 of the Provident Funds Act authorises deductions from the balance to his credit of any amount due under … either in the Local Boards Provident Fund Rules (made under Madras Local Boards Act 1920) or in the Provident Funds Act, 1929 empowering the competent authority to withhold payment of the sums admittedly due to the subscriber, unt I

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 26 1963

Jessie Josephine Garrad (Decd.) and ors. Vs. Millicent Ann Harding

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-26-1963

Subject : Family

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 180 and 360; State Railway Provident Fund Rules - Rule 14(6)

Reported in : AIR1964Mad227

There will be no order as to costs. Family - will - Sections 180 and 360 of Succession Act, 1925 and Rule 14 (6) of State Railway Provident Fund Rules - clear intention manifested by terms of will … a bequest of Rs. 5000 to his daughter Brinnel; Garrad out of his assets consisting of the provident fund, gratuity, and other assets. He directed that Rs. 4500 out of this amount be deposited in the Reserve … assets admittedly owned by the deceased. Under the circumstances, the provisions of Section 180 of the Indian Succession Act, would come into operation.'The learned Judge

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 03 1945

Komalsing Kuwarsing Vs. Krishnabai

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-03-1945

Subject : Service

Reported in : AIR1946Bom304; (1946)48BOMLR83

Court in the recent ease; of Head v. Guest : AIR1945Bom43 and it was held that under the Provident Funds Act, 1925, and the rules framed under it, there could be a valid nomination by a contributor of any person … attested. But no specific issue was raised on this point. Issue No. 6 is warded in general terms. But it appears that on the date … is), however, urged that as the prescribed form requires the declaration to be attested by two witnesses, under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the defendant was bound to call at least one of the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 18 1987

Om Wati Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-18-1987

Subject : Company

Acts : Provident Funds Act, 1925 - Sections 5; Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952

Reported in : [1987]61CompCas801(Delhi)

the provident fund. Counsel submits that the words 'right to receive' are borrowed from section 5 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925. He further argues that this right to receive the amount confers an absolute right on the nominee to … DTC. During his life time, Gopi Ram had filed a declaration for nomination under From 2 of Para 61 of the Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952. In the said declaration for

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial