National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: In the present case, a company appeal was filed by the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization (‘Appellant’), challenging the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad (‘Adjudicating Authority’), which had rejected an interim application seeking directions to release the payment of Provident Fund dues in light of Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) read with Section 11 and 17B of the Employees Provident Funds and [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’). The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal, stating that as per Regulation 16(2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (‘2016 Regulations’), a stakeholder claim could be filed as on the liquidation commencement date. In present case, the claim had been filed based on the assessment order by the Appellant subsequent to the liquidation commencement date, thus inadmissible.
Background:
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) of Gujarat Foils Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’) commenced by order dated 30-11-2017, and later, the Adjudicating Authority directed its liquidation by order dated 16-9-2019. The Appellant, by order dated 11-10-2021 (Assessment order), concluded the inquiry under Section 7-A of the EPF Act determining the Provident Fund dues. The Appellant submitted the claim in Form-G before the Liquidator for the total amount, which included damages and interest under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the EPF Act. However, the Liquidator rejected the claim by a letter dated 20-11-2021, principally on the ground of violation of Moratorium. On the Liquidator’s instructions, the Corporate Debtor challenged the Assessment order under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. The Appellant then filed an interim application before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking directions to release the payment of Provident Fund dues in light of Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the IBC, read with Sections 11 and 17-B of the EPF Act. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the interim application, aggrieved by which, this appeal was filed against that impugned order.
The Appellant submitted that the dues determined by the Assessment order were dues prior to initiation of the CIRP. It was further submitted that under Section 36(4) of the IBC, it was the obligation of the Liquidator to pay dues of the Provident Fund, Gratuity, and Pension.
Respondent 1 contended that the Assessment order under Section 7-A of the EPF Act, was made subsequent to the liquidation commencement date. It was also contended that the only claim existing on the date of the liquidation commencement could be entertained under the liquidation proceedings.
Analysis, Law, and Decision:
The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute between the parties that the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor commenced by order dated 30-11-2017 and the last date for submitting claims to the liquidator was 23-10-2019. Further, the claim which was filed by the Appellant on 25-10-2021 which was more than two years later. Also, through a detailed letter dated 20-11-2021, the Liquidator communicated to the EPFO Regional Office that claim was inadmissible.
Further the Tribunal held that, under the 2016 Regulations, a claim could only be filed as on the liquidation commencement date. As per the Appellant’s own submissions, the claim was filed based on the Assessment order and the orders passed under Section 7-Q and Section 14-B thereafter. Also, the application filed by the Appellant, sought admission of its claim, which had already been rejected by the Liquidator. Therefore, the claim did not exist on the liquidation commencement date and hence was not maintainable under the liquidation process.
The Tribunal concurred with the observation made by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order, that the Resolution Professional was required to keep track of the Appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor and make necessary arrangements contingent upon the decision of the Appeal.
The Tribunal also clarified that the non-admission of the claim in liquidation proceeding would not preclude the Appellant from taking available legal steps to realise its claim which arose after the liquidation commencement date. In view of the above foregoing discussions and conclusions, the Appeal was dismissed.
[EPFO v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Liquidator), 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1370, decided on 29-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant: Braja Bandhu Pradhan, Himanshu Rai and Kishan Kumar Behuria, Advocates
For Respondents: Divyanshu Rai, Taruna and Shubh Gautam, Advocates for Respondent-1.