Kineta Global Limited vs Employees' Provident Fund Organization

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 42, 61(2), 36(4)(a)(iii) — Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — Section 7A, 14B — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 14 — Order 21 Rule 105 of CPC — Appeal before NCLAT against orders of NCLT regarding admission of EPFO claim and dismissal of recall application — The appeal against admission of EPFO claim is barred by limitation as the appellant participated in the proceedings and the recall application was filed beyond the limitation period for filing an appeal, and recall of an order on merits after hearing the party is not maintainable. (Paras 7, 16, 19)

(B) Recall of order — Maintainability — A recall of an order is only permissible when there is an apparent and inherent procedural flaw in passing the order by the Tribunal and not for merits review after hearing the party. (Para 19)

(C) Limitation — Benefit under Section 14 of Limitation Act is not available when the initial application (recall) was itself filed beyond the limitation period prescribed for the main remedy (appeal). (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant was the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) of Blue Park Seafoods Private Limited. The Resolution Professional received a claim from EPFO which was pending inquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act. The resolution plan was approved on 07.05.2024. EPFO filed an application under Section 42 of the IBC on 05.01.2025 seeking admission of its claim. The NCLT allowed the claim on 13.06.2025, directing the SRA to pay Rs.92,86,949/-. The SRA filed a recall application on 31.07.2025 which was dismissed on 20.08.2025. The SRA then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on 03.11.2025, and thereafter filed the present appeals.

Findings of Court:
The appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation and non-maintainability of the recall application. The order of 13.06.2025 was passed on merits after hearing the SRA, and the recall application was filed after the expiry of limitation for filing an appeal, making it untenable. The subsequent appeal against the order of 13.06.2025 was also barred by limitation.

Issues: The main issues were whether the recall application was maintainable after the expiry of limitation for appeal, and whether the appeal against the order admitting EPFO claim was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if a party participates in proceedings and is heard, a recall application on grounds of not being heard is not maintainable. Recall cannot be used to circumvent limitation and a recall application filed beyond the appeal limitation period is not maintainable. The benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not available when the initial proceeding was itself filed late. Result : Appeals dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. CIRP initiated against corporate debtor — EPFO claim admitted after resolution plan approval — SRA challenged admission and recall dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

2. Appellant argued he was not heard and not made party — Recall application filed beyond limitation for appeal. (Para 6 , 8 )

3. Both company appeals dismissed — Appeal against claim admission dismissed as time-barred — Recall rejection upheld. (Para 20 )

4. Is a recall application maintainable if filed after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed for an appeal against the same order?

No, a recall application is not maintainable if filed beyond the limitation period for filing an appeal, particularly under the IBC where time is of utmost importance. (Para 7 , 15 , 16 , 17 )

5. Can an order passed on merits after hearing a party be recalled on the ground that the party was not heard?

No, recall is not permissible for an order passed on merits after hearing the party; the proper remedy is an appeal, not recall. (Para 16 , 19 )

6. Does filing a belated recall application and subsequent writ petition entitle the appellant to condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act?

No, because the recall application itself was filed after the limitation period for appeal, so the period spent cannot be excluded under Section 14. (Para 15 , 17 )

7. Does participation in proceedings by counsel constitute being heard for the purpose of recall?

Yes, if a party is represented by counsel and participates in the proceedings, it amounts to being heard, and recall cannot be sought on grounds of lack of notice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 19 )

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

[ORAL JUDGMENT: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)] 13.04.2026

1.These two company appeals have been preferred by Kineta Global Limited, the Successful Resolution Applicant of Blue Park Seafoods Private Limited. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 22/2026 would be taken as to be the lead appeal, where the Appellant challenges the impugned order of 13.06.2025, that was passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, in IA(IBC)/24 /2025, in IA(IBC)/407/2023 in CP (IB)/77 /9/AMR/2021, by virtue of which the claim preferred by EPFO, Respondent-1 herein was allowed. In Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 21/2026, the Appellant challenges the order of Ld. NCLT dated 20.08.2025, that was passed, in IA(IBC)/272/2025, that was preferred in IA(IBC)/24/2025 in IA(IBC)/407/2023, in CP(IB) No. 77/9/AMR/2021, whereby the application filed by the Appellant / SRA seeking recall of the order passed by Ld. NCLT on 13.06.2025 in IA/24/2025 was rejected. The facts which engage consideration in both the appeals are common. Hence, they are required to be commonly read for both the company appeals.

2. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Corporate Debtor was initiated with filing of the application under Section 9 of I&B Code by M/s. Pattabhi Enterprises. The said application was admitted by Ld. NCLT by the order dated 26.10.2022 and CIRP was commenced in respect of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional, who was appointed by an order dated 14.12.2022 to conduct the CIRP, took the necessary steps such as issue of public notice, invitation of claims and collation of the same and constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and after taking the approval of the CoC, invited Expression of Interest (EoI) for submission of Resolution Plans.

3. The Appellant, submitted his Expression of Interest (EoI) and was declared as a Prospective Resolution Applicant. Subsequently, he was asked to submit a Resolution Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Code and he duly submitted the same for consideration of CoC. In all, four Resolution Plans including the resolution plan submitted by the Appellant were put up before the CoC for consideration. The CoC deliberated upon the said four plans, and ultimately, approved the plan that was submitted by the Appellant by 100% voting on 10.11.2023. Thereafter, the Resolution Professional filed the application IA(IBC)/407/2023 in the CP (IB)/77 /9/AMR/2021 on 18.11.2023, seeking an approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant, which stood approved by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide its order of 07.05.2024.

4. It is revealed from the records that the Resolution Professional, in the process of receiving claims from the creditors and other stakeholders, received a claim from the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) for an amount of Rs. 92,86,949/- on 24.01.2023. The said amount as claimed was qua the amount payable under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952, wherein the assessment of dues relating to the claim was pending inquiry, and final orders were yet to be passed by the competent authority under EPF&MP Act. The inquiry proceeding against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7A of the EPF Act was initiated by Respondent No. 1 on 15.07.2022 and the said inquiry proceedings continued during the CIRP period despite operation of the moratorium which is borne by the fact that on 14.02.2023, the notices were issued to the RP by Employee's Provident Fund Officer. Further, the final order on the said 7A proceedings was passed on 30.04.2024 and the same was communicated to the Resolution Professional. Meanwhile, the resolution plan submitted in IA(IBC)/407/2023 was approved by Ld. NCLT on 07.05.2024.

5. The records further reveal that on receiving no response from the RP in respect of its claim submitted and upon learning that the resolution plan has already been approved on 07.05.2024, EPFO, the Respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 556

A recall application filed beyond the limitation period for filing an appeal against an order passed on merits after hearing the party is not maintainable and cannot be used to circumvent the statutory limitation under the IBC.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Is a recall application maintainable if filed after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed for an appeal against the same order?

5. Can an order passed on merits after hearing a party be recalled on the ground that the party was not heard?

6. Does filing a belated recall application and subsequent writ petition entitle the appellant to condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act?

7. Does participation in proceedings by counsel constitute being heard for the purpose of recall?