Employee Provident Fund Organisation vs M/S Rajat Minerals

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Rajkot ...Appellant Versus Rajat Minerals, SRA No.1 of ALM Metals and Alloys Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Advocate. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

11.08.2025: I.A. No.3534 of 2025: This is an application praying for

condonation of appeal of 14 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the

Appellant submit that the certified copy of the order was applied on

20.03.2025 and it was ready on 25.03.2025. It is submitted that 6 days' time

need to be excluded, hence, delay is only 8 days. It is submitted that the

Appellant is EPFO organisation and appeal was to be filed at Delhi. We find

sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Delay condoned. IA No.3534 of

2025 stands disposed of.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has been filed

against order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 18.03.2025 allowing

I.A. No.1044/ND/2024 which was filed by the Successful Resolution

Applicant. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on

05.04.2021. Appellant i.e. EPFO passed an order under Section 7A on

Cont'd.../ 16.09.2021 and thereafter, an order under Section 8F was passed on

28.10.2021. In the CIRP, the CoC approved the resolution plan on

29.12.2021. The Recovery Certificate was issued for recovery of EPFO dues

on 05.04.2022. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating

Authority on 13.07.2024. The Resolution Applicant, who was declared as

Successful Resolution Applicant filed I.A. No.1044/ND/2024 questioning the

Recovery Certificate dated 05.04.2022, which has been allowed by the

impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that

notices were issued in proceeding under Section 7A to the Resolution

Professional but the Resolution Professional did not respond to the notices.

Further, dues which has been assessed on 16.09.2021 were dues prior to the

CIRP period. He submits that the Appellant was not aware of the CIRP

commencement, hence, no claim could be filed.

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

Appellant and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, the CIRP commenced on 05.04.2021 and moratorium was

imposed. After moratorium was imposed it was not open for the Appellant to

issue the Recovery Certificate dated 05.04.2022 on the basis of assessment

order passed during moratorium. Further, no claim was filed in the CIRP by

the Appellant. The Resolution Applicant, who took the Corporate Debtor as

Successful Resolution Applicant could not be saddled with any claim which

was not part of the Resolution Plan, which is the law declared by the Hon'ble

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 901 of 2025 2 of 3 Supreme Court in "Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss

Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 657".

6. We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating

Authority partly allowing the application filed by the Successful Resolution

Applicant and it is further observed by the Adjudicating Authority that the

Applicant is at liberty to approach the forum against the Recovery Certificate

dated 05.04.2022. We find that substantial justice has been done by the

Adjudicating Authority, which need no interference in this appeal. The appeal

is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 901 of 2025 3 of 3