Efficax Resolution Professionals ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 506 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a liquidator's predecessor has admitted a creditor's claim in the liquidation proceedings and the admitted amount has been paid without any objection to the admission or the payment, a successor liquidator cannot maintain an application seeking refund of that payment from the creditor, and the absence of prior notice to the creditor does not alter that position.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Efficax Resolution Professionals Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Liquidator of Siddharth Natural Food Resources Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II ...Respondents (Recovery) Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO)
Present: For Appellant : Counsel Appeared but presence not marked. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
23.03.2026: I.A. No. 1960 of 2026
One day delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 1960 of 2026 is
allowed.
CA (AT) (Ins) No. 506 of 2026
2. Heard counsel for the appellant.
3. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by
NCLT in IA No.5603/2025 which application was filed by the Liquidator
praying for refund from EPFO. Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order
has rejected the application.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no separate
account maintained for EPFO dues and the erstwhile Liquidator has admitted the claim and there no balance sheet of corporate debtor was prepared after
2010-11.
5. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
6. The Adjudicating Authority has noticed that during the liquidation
proceedings EPFO submitted its computation in respect of its claim and such
computation was admitted by Liquidator and according a payment of Rs.
20,07,247/- was made to EPFO Department by its erstwhile Liquidator. The
application has been filed by the new Liquidator claiming for refund. We are
of the view that, when the claim was admitted by the erstwhile Liquidator and
amount was paid and no objection was raised with respect to admission or
payment, it was not open for the new Liquidator to file an application for
refund.
7. Counsel for the appellant submitted that they have also sent notice to
the EPFO Department. Giving of notice is not relevant when claim was
admitted in the liquidation proceeding and payment was made, it was not
open for the new Liquidator to file an application for refund. The admission of
claim was never questioned by anyone before the Adjudicating Authority. We
thus do not find any error in the order impugned. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
harleen/MD
2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 506 of 2026
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free