TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : Mr.Chinmoy Khaladkar, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Jay Savla,Adv., Ms.Meenakshi Ogra, Adv., Ms.Renuka Sahu, Adv. O R D E R Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court declaring that the dues of the workers payable under Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, `the 1956 Act') will have priority over the amount due to the Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of the Company on pari pasu basis in terms of Section 529-A of the 1956 Act. Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Appeal No.658 of 2004 which was allowed by the Division Bench on the premises that non obstante clause contained in Section 529-A of the 1956 Act will prevail over Section 38-C of 1959 Act. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Recovery Officer as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Kerala Financial Corporation ILR (2002) 3 Ker 4, which held that the primacy of the first charge created under Section 11(2) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 will prevail over the primacy of the first charge created under Section 46-B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
