Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2009 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 540 - HIGH COURT OF MADRASMill was restrained from disposing of its assets by the BIFR under section 22A of the Act - whether as no payment could be made by the first petitioner mill towards the statutory dues and therefore, non payment was neither wilful nor wanton? Held that:- Though the fact that the obligation and liability for payment of the provident fund contribution and other dues have been entirely discharged by the petitioners, it may not by itself exonerate them from the penal consequences flowing from the tentacles of sections 14A and 14(1A) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and yet it cannot be stated that such a circumstance cannot at all be construed as a mitigating circumstance to take into consideration by the court concerned. It is open to the petitioners to place relevant materials before the learned Magistrate in this regard and the learned Magistrate will examine the submissions made by the petitioners in the light of the discussions made above and decide in the light of the evidence adduced whether on the facts and circumstances of this case prosecution is sustainable.
|