Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Pramod Dattaram Rasam
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1411 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning in this order rests on the following principles, stated in the order the Tribunal takes them: A claim by an operational creditor or statutory authority in respect of dues that accrued after the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, and after the moratorium took effect (here, dues arising from orders dated after the moratorium), falls outside the claim that the Resolution Professional may admit in the insolvency process, and the adjudicating authority is correct in declining to accept such a claim. Dues which arose before the moratorium and were established through proceedings preceding it may be admitted, where the adjudicating authority accepts the Resolution Professional's undertaking to pay the pre-moratorium amount, and the adjudicating authority's disposal of the application on that basis, admitting the pre-moratorium claim and rejecting the post-moratorium claims, discloses no error warranting interference in appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Thane ...Appellant Versus Pramod Dattaram Rasam, (RP of TMW Fintech Pvt. Ltd.) ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Gautam and Ms. Snehpreet Kaur, Advocates.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.02.2026 : I.A. No. 5517/2025
1. This is an application praying for condonation of 13 days delay in filing
of the appeal.
2. The appeal has been filed by Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Thane.
3. We find sufficient cause shown in paragraph 2(ii) for explaining the
delay.
Delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1411/2025
1. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 13.06.2025 passed
by the adjudicating authority, by which I.A. No. 805/2025 filed by the appellant has been disposed of. In the I.A. No.805/2025, appellant made
following prayers:
"a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 749 days in filing the Claim by the Applicant.
b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an order and direct the Resolution Professional to admit the entire claim of 9,63,305/- of the applicant filed on 19.03.2024 in Annexure A.
c) Any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case."
2. Adjudicating authority in paragraph 2 has noted the claims and
documents, on basis of which, the claim was raised. In paragraph 2 of the
order, following has been observed:
"2. The Department has annexed letter dated 19.03.2024 regarding submission of the claim. Perusal of the claim reflects as follows:
Dues Period Amount Document Rs.
Dues of 01/2019 28,918/- Copy of Area Provident to 1,425/- Enforcement Fund 06/2019. Officer 04/2020 report dated to 28.07.2023 10/2021 Damages 08/2015 5,28,018/- Copy of u/s 14B to dues 05/2020 assessment u/s 14B order dated 17.10.2023 Interest 08/2015 4,04,944/- Copy of u/s 7Q to dues 05/2020 assessment u/s 7Q order dated 17.10.2023 Recovery 01/2019 28,918/- Recovery Certificate to certificated (7A Dues) 06/2019
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1411 of 2025 & I.A. No.5517 of 2025 2 of 3 dated 02.03.2023 Short Nil remittance Total 9,63,305/-
3. Adjudicating authority relying on the judgments of this Tribunal on a
statement made by the SRA that he shall be making payment of Rs.28,918/-
as claimed under Section 7A has disposed of the application. Other claims
were not being accepted, since they had arisen after the moratorium i.e., by
orders dated 28.07.2023 and 17.10.2023. The CIRP had commenced on
12.10.2021.
4. We thus do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority
disposing of the application by accepting the claim of Rs.28,918/- and not
accepting the other claims which arose during the moratorium period.
We thus do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned.
The appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1411 of 2025 & I.A. No.5517 of 2025 3 of 3
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