THE MANAGING PARTNER v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =W.P.(C) No. 36958 OF 2007 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Dated this the 17th December, 2007J U D G M E N TPetitioner claims that his establishment is covered by theprovisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and MiscellaneousProvisions Act, 1952. She would therefore contend that in view ofthis, she is not liable to pay contribution under the Motor TransportWorkers Welfare Fund Act and therefore the insistence of therespondents for clearance certificate issued under the said Act foraccepting motor vehicle tax is illegal. If the establishment of thepetitioner is covered as contended by her, it is true that she isentitled to the benefit of the exemption clause provided under Section 4(1) of the Act. This position in so far as the petitioner isconcerned is seen decided by this Court in Ext. P3 judgment. 2. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directingthat the respondent shall accept tax in respect of the vehicle owned WPC No. 36958/07-2-and possessed by the petitioner on the petitioner proving to thesatisfaction of the respondents that up to date contribution underthe Employees Provident Fund Act has been remitted by her. ANTONY DOMINICJUDGEjan/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor TransportWorkers Welfare Fund Act; Employees Provident Fund Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 17 Dec 2007. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.