SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Cal) 167

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI
SANYAL LAHIRI AND CO. LTD – Appellant
Versus
C. B. PAUL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMAL CHATTERJI, ANIL GUPTA, MILON MUKHARJI

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) THESE batch of applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, between the same parties, having been involved, common questions of fact and law, were heard together and are disposed of under a common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 which is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at 237 D, Manicktala Main Road, P. S. Narkeldanga, Calcutta 54 and the other petitioners as its Directors have filed these applications to quash the batch of complaint cases Nos. C/125/90, C/126/90, C/127/90, C/128/90, C/129/90, C/130/90, C/185/90, C/186/90, C/187/90, C/188/90, C/1028/89, C/1029/89, C/1030/89, C/1031/89, now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24-Parganas at Sealdah lodged by the opposite party No. 1 Provident Fund Inspector, West Bengal, 44, Park Street, Calcutta-16 under Section 14 (1a), 14a (1) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act of 1952 read with para 76-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.

( 3 ) THE opposite party No. 1 in the said complaint levelled accusation against the petitioners that they being the employers had failed to pay contributions for different p











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top