Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, ABHAY J. MANTRI
Murli Industries Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi – Respondent
Certainly. Here are the specific points from the provided document that support the statement, with each reference indicated separately:
The explanation to Section 18(1) of the IB Code states that assets owned by third parties in possession of the corporate debtor held under trust or contractual arrangements, including bailment, are excluded from the assets that can be included in the resolution process, indicating that only assets over which the debtor has ownership rights or dominion are relevant. (!) (!) (!)
The discussion on the employer’s contribution to the provident fund clarifies that, although it is a statutory liability and protected from attachment, it remains property held in trust for the employees and is not an asset of the corporate debtor that can be included in the resolution or liquidation estate. (!) (!) (!)
The analysis of the scope of assets under the IB Code emphasizes that statutory liabilities, even if crystallized, are not automatically assets of the corporate debtor that can be included or excluded from the resolution or liquidation estate, especially when they are protected from attachment. (!) (!) (!)
The detailed discussion on the protection of statutory dues, including the employer’s contribution to the provident fund, clarifies that these are liabilities owed to employees and are protected from attachment, but do not necessarily constitute assets that can be included or excluded from the estate by default. (!) (!) (!)
These references collectively support the view that a crystallized EPFO claim remains a statutory liability and does not automatically qualify as an asset of the corporate debtor for exclusion under Section 36.
JUDGMENT :
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels for the respective parties.
2. On 10/2/2025, We had heard Mr. Bhangde learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and had recorded his contentions as under :
2.1. The present petition questions the claim of the Provident Fund Department, to recover PF dues of the employees vis-a-vis the petitioner, which are not part of the resolution plan. Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that in respect of the original petitioner company/Murli Industries, one asset reconstruction company had filed Insolvency proceedings for initiation of Insolvency Regulation, in which by an order dated 5.4.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT for short hereinafter) in CP No.66/2017 one Mr. Vijaykumar Iyer was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP for short hereinafter) (page 31). The said IRP by a public announcement dated 11.4.2017, called upon the creditors of the original petitioner company to submit proof of their claims on or before 19.4.2017 to him (p32). The respondent, by communication dated 4.10.2017 (p38) intimated a
The employer's contribution to the provident fund is not an asset of the corporate debtor and cannot be included in the resolution plan, thus the claim for provident fund dues is not extinguished by ....
Provident fund dues do not have priority over other debts during liquidation under IBC; they are subject to waterfall mechanism provisions.
Moratorium under IBC Section 14 prohibits EPF quasi-judicial assessments post-CIRP; delayed claims post-CoC resolution plan approval inadmissible.
Claims filed post-moratorium under the IBC are inadmissible and cannot be considered, irrespective of statutory due priorities.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
