welfare legislation - The Legal Chamber

SARFAESI Act vs EPF Act: Supreme Court Says Provident Fund Charge Prevails Over Bank

9Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

SARFAESI Act vs EPF Act: Supreme Court Says Provident Fund Charge Prevails Over Bank

This Supreme Court judgment interprets the interplay between the priority of secured creditors under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and the statutory first charge for provident fund dues under Section 11(2) of the EPF & MP Act. The Supreme Court held that the statutory first charge for provident fund contributions overrides the priority granted to secured creditors, even under a non-obstante clause in a later enactment. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a secured creditor which had advanced loans to a co-operative sugar society, secured by a mortgage and hypothecation of the society's assets. The sugar factory became defunct, leading to loan defaults. The bank initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act, took possession o...

Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof in railway accident compensation claims under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court held that the initial burden on claimants can be discharged by affidavit and verified ticket records, shifting the onus to the Railways. Mere absence of a ticket or seizure memo does not defeat a legitimate claim, as the statutory regime is a welfare-oriented, no-fault liability system based on preponderance of probabilities. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the death of Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik on 19 May 2017. He was allegedly travelling from Indore to Ujjain by the Ranthambore Express (Train No. 12465) when, due to overcrowding, he was pushed from the moving train near Ujjain, sustaining fatal head injuries. The police regi...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Awards Pension to Temporary Railway Employee’s Family

The Supreme Court ruled that temporary railway employees completing over one year of continuous service are entitled to family pension under Rule 75 of the Railway Pension Rules, 1993, regardless of regularization. The Court emphasized that legislative intent protects dependents of deceased employees, rejecting the 10-year threshold argument and directing arrears payment with ₹5 lakh ex-gratia relief under Article 142. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Mala Devi, widow of Om Prakash Maharaj, a temporary railway employee who died in service after 9 years and 8 months of continuous work. Appointed as a "Summer Waterman" in 1986, he later cleared screening tests and was deputed as a Guard/Shuntman before his fatal accident in 1996. While Mala Devi received ex-gratia payment and compassio...