9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (11) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,386,74 nP. being the contribution and charges payable by the company in liquidation under the Employee s Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the Scheme thereunder made applicable to the company. Notice of admission of proof in Form No. 70 prescribed under the rules dated 29th August, 1963, was served on the appellant on 31st August, 1963. The appeal was filed on 4th October, 1963, thirteen days beyond the time prescribed under rule 164. The appellant prays for condonation of this delay for the reasons set out in paragraph 9 of his affidavit. Two reasons are stated therein. The first is that the liquidator did not in Form No. 70 indicate the period of limitation prescribed for appeal, and the second is that some time was taken up by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of items 3 to 5 on the ground that a claim for preferential payment must be made out on one or the other of the clauses of section 530 of the Companies Act of 1956 and that such claim in this case may be said to have been made out only in respect of the first two items under clause ( f ) of subsection 530. The appellant claims that all the items mentioned above are entitled to preferential payment by virtue of section 11 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act of 1952, by force of which all the items claimed by him should be deemed to be included among the debts entitled to preferential payment under the Companies Act, The relevant portion of that section reads as follows: "Where any employer .... being a company, an order for w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the appellant after investigation having stated that no such substitution appears to have been made by any legislative amendment the question for consideration is whether the appellant could, even in the absence of such an amendment, claim that the amounts claimed by him are entitled to preferential payment as if they are included in the list of debts enumerated in section 530 of the Companies Act of 1956. The answer to the question is, I think, to be found in section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, which reads as follows : "Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It repealed, among other statutes, the Companies Act of 1913. Though in certain important respects changes were made in the law, the general structure and features of the company law have remained substantially the same, most of the provisions of the previous Act having been re-enacted in substantially the same form in the consolidating Act. The provisions of section 230 of the 1913 Act are re-enacted in section 530 of the 1956 Act. There appears from the provisions of section 530 no intention to take away the priority payment available to the sums or amounts mentioned in section 11 of the Provident Funds Act. On the contrary, to the extent the legislative intent appears to foster the welfare of employees, the changes made in section 53 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
