Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Dushant Dave Liquidator Of M/S. ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 324 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned a 15-day delay in filing the appeal on the reasons pleaded in the application, there being no objection from the respondent. Where the liquidation estate is insufficient even to meet the liquidation process costs, and nothing remains in the liquidation account, an adjudicating authority's refusal to admit a revised claim of an operational creditor (here, PF dues) cannot be faulted, since no payment could in any event be made out of the estate to satisfy it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Employees Provident Fund Organisation ...Appellant
Versus
Dushant Dave ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Varma and Mr. Swapnil Joshi, Advocates. For Respondent : Ms. Shikha Bhura, Advocate for Liquidator.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
27.03.2025: I.A. No. 1223 of 2025: This is an application praying for
condonation of 15 days delay in filing the appeal. In Para 2 of the application
the reasons have been given for 15 days delay in filing the appeal. No
objection has been filed by the Respondent to the delay condonation
application in spite of time allowed. We find sufficient cause for condonation
of delay. Delay condoned.
CA (AT)(Ins) No. 324 of 2025
This appeal is filed against the order dated 10.12.2024 which order is
as follows:-
"ORDER
1. Ms. Shikha Bhura, Ld. Counsel for the Liquidator present.
2. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submits that liquidation estate was not sufficient enough even to meet the liquidation process costs and after meeting out the liquidation process cost, nothing is left in the account. The liquidator has already filed an 2
application seeking dissolution of the Corporate Debtor and there are no assets in the liquidation estate from which the claim of the Appellant, even if allowed, can be paid out.
3. In view of the submissions of Counsel for the Liquidator, the Appeal/24/2024 is dismissed."
2. Counsel for the appellant submits that PF dues are liable to be paid and
the revised claim which was filed by the appellant were not accepted. Ld.
Counsel for the liquidator submits that there are no assets in the liquidation
estate and the liquidator has already filed an application for dissolution.
3. In facts of the present case specially when nothing is left in the account
in the liquidation process and the liquidation estate was not even sufficient
to meet the liquidation process cost, We do not find any error in the order of
Adjudicating Authority by which appeal filed by the appellant to accept their
revised claim has not been accepted. We thus, do not find any merit in the
appeal. Appeal dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 324 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1223 of 2025
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