Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2117

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Sh. Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Sh. Charanjeet Singh Gulati, JJ
The Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Anil Kumar Dad, Resolution Professional, of Samaypra Technosolution Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 | Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 245 of 2022 | Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 752, 643, 792, 801, 915 of 2021, 361, 771 & 987 of 2022 | IA- 10/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. Vinay Kate (PH)
For the Respondents: Adv. Nausher Kohli (PH), Adv. Monel Thakkar (VC)

EPFO claims for statutory dues take precedence in insolvency proceedings, and delays in submission should not bar consideration if filed before the Resolution Plan approval.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 12-A - Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Claim for statutory Provident Fund dues - Corporate Debtor defaulted in remittance of dues amounting to Rs. 86,37,135/- - Claim submitted belatedly but prior to approval of Resolution Plan by CoC - EPFO claims take precedence over other claims and must be considered in the Resolution Plan - Claim not in prescribed form but should not be outright rejected. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

(B) The timely submission of claims in CIRP is essential, but the delay due to procedural requirements should not bar valid claims of employees. (Para 17)

(C) The form of claim submission is directory, and the claim must be supported by proof. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, Central Board of Trustees, filed a claim against the Corporate Debtor for unpaid statutory Provident Fund dues after the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The claim was rejected by the Resolution Professional on grounds of being belated and not in the prescribed form.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the claim was filed before the approval of the Resolution Plan and that the delay should not preclude the claim's consideration. The claim must be verified and allowed as it represents statutory dues owed to employees.

Issues: Whether the belated claim by the EPFO should be admitted despite not being submitted in the prescribed form and after the deadline for claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statutory dues under the EPFO must be prioritized and considered, even if submitted belatedly, as they represent the rights of employees. The prescribed form for claims is directory, and the RP must verify the claim.

Result: Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. claim submission and timeline. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondent's arguments on claim validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. priority of epfo claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. respondent's stance on claim submission. (Para 14 , 15)
5. court’s reasoning on claim admission. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. application allowed. (Para 22)

ORDER

1. This is an IA filed by the Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund Organization for directions to the Resolution Professional to admit the entire claim of Rs. 86,37,135/- of the Applicant filed on 19.03.2024 along with damages and interest.

Contention of the Applicant: -

2. It is contended by the Applicant that the Corporate Debtor covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 01.09.2018, the remittance of statutory Provident Fund by the Corporate Debtor was mandatory. The Corporate Debtor has defaulted in remittance of statutory Provident Fund and allied dues to the tune of Rs. 86,37,135/-. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against the Corporate Debtor and Mr. Nishi Jain was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional vide order dated 05.10.2023. Accordingly, the public announcement was made on 17.10.2023 and the claims were to be filed on or before 30.10.2023. The Applicant received the intimation vide email dated 03.11.2023 regarding initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and the IRP vide its letter dated 29.11.2023 intimated the Applicant in respect of initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and requested to file a claim against the Corporate Debtor. After receiving the email dated 03.11.2023 from the Zonal Office Thane and letter dated 29.11.2023 from IRP, the Applicant after securing approvals and sanctions from the Higher Authorities filed the claim in respect of the Corporate Debtor. Mr. Anil Kumar Dad was appointed as Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor by this Court vide its order dated 05.12.2023. The Enforcement Officer of the Applicant after inspection of various documents i.e. balance sheets and salary sheets calculated quantum dues of Rs. 86,11,549/- and filed its report before the Applicant.

3. The Applicant on 19.03.2024 filed its claim to the tune of Rs. 86,37,135/- with the RP. The RP vide his email dated 26.03.2024 informed the Applicant about the inability to accept the claim stating that the claim is not in prescribed form within a time frame. The Applicant vide its email dated 23.04.2024 informed the Respondent about the EPFO claim and also indicated various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the claim of the Applicant was rejected and, therefore, the present Application.

Contentions of the Respondent: -

4. The Respondent filed its reply and contended that the CIRP date was 16/10/2023, Public Announcement in Form-A was made on 17/10/2023 and the last date of submission of claim was 30/10/2023.

5. On 19^th March 2023, the Applicant addressed a communication purportedly pertaining it to be a claim. This was responded on 26^th March 2024 by the Respondent recording that the claim has not been submitted in correct form as prescribed and is also belated. Thereafter, the CoC approved the Resolution Plan on 8^th April 2024 and the same was filed before the tribunal on 11^th April 2024.

6. On 12^th August 2024, the Applicant addressed another communication to the Respondent pertaining to an additional/revised claim which was responded to by the Respondent on 17^th August 2024 recording that the timeline of the submission of the claim has expired and also recording that the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC and is submitted before the Tribunal.

7. The applicant further submitted that the belated claim of the Applicant could not have been admitted by the Respondent as the claim was not been submitted in any form as prescribed. It is also contended that the application, otherwise also, cannot be allowed for the reasons that the Applicant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document