Provided - Judgment Search Results
JoslIn Mfg. Co. Vs. Providence
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-11-1923
a business did so with notice that the extra-constitutional compensation provided for would not apply to him. In the difference between
Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Employees Provident ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT502; 2005(83)DRJ647; [2006(108)FLR35]; (2006)IILLJ388Del
a period for preferring an appeal, however, the rule also provided a further period of 60 days by proviso to sub-rule
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Employees' Provident Fund App ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT112(HC),(2006)IIILLJ192Cal
The admitted position is that no provision of law specifically provided for grant of interest to an establishment in such a
Turn these results into brief-ready notes
Central Provident Fund Vs. Central Provident Fund
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay: Provided that where the Central Board is of the opinion that
The Assistant Provident Fund Vs. the Employees Provident Fund.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
that Section 7(L) read with para 32(a) of the Employees Provident Fund scheme makes it clear that the Tribunal is entitled
Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Employees Provident Fund App ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
Ag. C.J.- This Writ Appeal is filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Employees Provident Fund App ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
the lis. All his decisions are subject to the appeals provided under the statute. In Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail V. Special Director,
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,vi Vs. Employees Provident Fund ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
the lis. All his decisions are subject to the appeals provided under the statute. In Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail V. Special Director,
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka Vs. Workmen represente ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1984SC1897; [1984(49)FLR433]; 1984LabIC1682; (1984)IILLJ503SC; 1984(2)SCALE422; 1984Supp(1)SCC418; [1985]1SCR816; 1985(17)LC121(SC)
as the State Board in such manner as may be provided for in the Scheme. The crucial provision in Section 5B
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Victory Service Station,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ207
the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner bringing M/s Victory Service Station and M/s Kapoor
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try AI Brief & Semantic Search - 7 days free