Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Rachna Jhunjhunwala Chairperson Of ...

(Arising against the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the

National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Court-II in I.A. (IB) Plan

No. 2/KB/2024 in C.P. (IB) No. 104/KB/2022)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office - Park Street, 44, Park Street, 7th and 8th Floor, ...Appellant Kolkata - 700016.

Versus

Rachna Jhunjhunwala, Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee of ...Respondent No. 1

Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Shyam Enterprises,

Successful Resolution Applicant. ...Respondent No. 2

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Varma and Ms. Neeraj Ahirwar, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Pranay Agarwal, Ms. Alisha Khan, Ms. Sweta Majumdar, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Kumarjit Banerjee, Mr. Sanchari Chakroborty, Mr. Devanshu, Mr. Aadil Naushad, Advocates for R-2.

Cont'd..../ -2-

J U D G M EN T (27th January, 2026)

INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (T)

The present appeal has been preferred by the Employees' Provident

Fund Organisation, being the Appellant herein, under Section 61 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (herein after referred to as 'Code'),

assailing the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Learned National

Company Law Tribunal (Adjudicating Authority) Kolkata Bench, Court-II

in I.A. (IB) Plan No. 2/KB/2024 in C.P. (IB) No. 104/KB/2022, whereby the

Resolution Plan submitted in respect of Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd.

(Corporate Debtor) was approved. In the present appeal, Ms. Rachna

Jhunjhunwala, Resolution Professional and Chairperson of the

Monitoring Committee of the Corporate Debtor, has been arrayed as

Respondent No. 1, while Shyam Enterprises, the Successful Resolution

Applicant (SRA) of the approved Resolution Plan, has been impleaded as

Respondent No. 2.

2. The appeal arises from the grievance of the Appellant, that despite

its statutory provident fund claim of Rs. 22,49,956/- having been duly

admitted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the approved

Resolution Plan provides for payment of only Rs. 73,120/-, amounting to

approximately 3% of the admitted provident fund dues, which, according

to the Appellant, is contrary to the statutory scheme governing provident

fund dues and the settled position of law.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -3-

Brief facts of the case

3. The brief facts of the case are as given below:

i. The Corporate Debtor, Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company

incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered

office at Kolkata, was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process based on an application filed by it, under Section 10 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which was admitted by the

Adjudicating Authority on 01.05.2023 resulting in initiation of

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

ii. Upon initiation of CIRP, a public announcement was issued inviting

claims from creditors, pursuant to which the Employees' Provident

Fund Organisation, being a statutory authority responsible for

safeguarding employees' provident fund contributions, submitted its

claim in Form-B on for a total amount of Rs. 22,49,956/-, vide letter

dated 18.05.2023. The claim comprised of provident fund dues along

with amounts payable under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Employees'

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Prior to

submission of the claim in Form B, the Regional PF Commissioner

sent a letter dated 15.05.2023 wherein he requested the RP to remit

the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,49,956/-, to them in accordance with

statutory provisions under the EPF &MP Act 1952.

iii. The aforesaid claim of the Appellant was duly verified and admitted

in its entirety by the Resolution Professional and was reflected as an

admitted statutory claim in the final list of creditors prepared during

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -4-

the CIRP, thereby acknowledging the full liability of the Corporate

Debtor towards provident fund dues payable to the employees.

iv. During the CIRP, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted

with Indian Bank as the sole financial creditor holding 100% voting

share. After completion of the resolution process, a resolution plan

submitted by Shyam Enterprises was approved by the CoC with 100%

voting share in the CoC meetings conducted between 27.12.2023 and

02.02.2024.

v. The resolution plan approved by the CoC was thereafter submitted

before the Adjudicating Authority by the RP vide I.A. (IB) Plan No.

2/KB/2024 for approval under Sections 30(6) and 31(1) of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority

approved the same vide the impugned order dated 17.05.2024.

vi. Under the approved Resolution Plan, the total amount proposed to

be paid towards the provident fund dues of the Appellant was fixed

at Rs. 73,120/-, despite the admitted claim amount being

Rs.22,49,956/-, resulting in a payout of merely about 3% of the

statutory provident fund dues.

vii. It is an admitted position on record that no prior intimation or

consultation was made with the Appellant regarding the drastic

reduction in payment of provident fund dues, and the Appellant was

informed of the reduced payout only after approval of the Resolution

Plan, for the first time, through an email communication dated

07.06.2024 received from the Resolution Professional.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -5-

viii. The Appellant contends that provident fund dues constitute

employees' hard-earned money and are statutorily protected under

the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952. The PF dues are specifically excluded from the liquidation

estate under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016, and therefore could not have been subjected to reduction

or haircut under the Resolution Plan.

ix. The appellant submits that approval of a resolution plan providing

for partial payment of provident fund dues is in violation of

mandatory statutory provisions, settled judicial precedents, and the

binding nature of provident fund liabilities, rendering the impugned

order legally unsustainable.

x. It is in these circumstances, being aggrieved by the approval of the

Resolution Plan and the consequential impairment of statutory

provident fund dues, that the Appellant has approached this

Appellate Tribunal in the present appeal seeking setting aside of the

impugned order dated 17.05.2024 to the extent it approves reduced

payment of provident fund dues.

Submissions of Appellant/EPFO

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that they have preferred the

present appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.05.2024

passed by the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench,

wherein the Resolution Plan in respect of the Corporate Debtor was

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -6-

approved. It is submitted that while approving the said Resolution Plan, the

Learned Adjudicating Authority has erroneously approved a plan, which

provides for payment of only Rs. 73,120/- towards provident fund dues,

against the total admitted claim of Rs. 22,49,956/- filed by the Appellant

and duly admitted by the Resolution Professional. It is further submitted

that the Learned NCLT has excluded the statutory components of damages

under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 and interest under Section 7Q of the said Act, without

assigning any reasons whatsoever, rendering the impugned order arbitrary,

illegal, and contrary to settled law.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor commenced on

01.05.2023 and pursuant thereto, claims were invited by the Resolution

Professional in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The appellant

submits that the Regional PF Commissioner-II (Legal) wrote a letter to the

IRP on 15.05.2023 wherein he gave the details of his total claim of

Rs.22,49,956/- and requested to remit the entire claim towards provident

fund and allied dues to them immediately as per the statutory provisions

of EPF and MP Act, 1952 and relevant judicial pronouncements in this

regard.

6. He further submits that the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)

advised EPFO authorities to filed their claim in Form-B. In response, the

Appellant duly filed its claim on 18.05.2023 for a total amount of

Rs.22,49,956/-. The said claim comprised of three distinct statutory

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -7-

components, namely: (a) Rs. 73,120/- towards provident fund dues under

Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act; (b) Rs. 9,32,805/- towards statutory

interest leviable under Section 7Q of the said Act; and (c) Rs. 12,44,031/-

towards statutory damages imposed under Section 14B of the said Act.

Thus, the total outstanding provident fund dues lawfully payable by the

Corporate Debtor stood crystallised at Rs. 22,49,956/-.

7. He submits that the aforesaid outstanding dues were not claimed

arbitrarily, but were calculated strictly on the basis of a detailed

computation chart placed on record in the appeal. It is further submitted

that the claim of the Appellant is based upon the Enforcement Officer's

Reports dated 12.05.2023, which are part of the appeal. These reports

clearly establish the default committed by the Corporate Debtor in

remitting provident fund contributions within time, and form the statutory

basis for the levy of contribution, interest, and damages under the EPF &

MP Act.

8. Ld. Counsel submits that the Resolution Professional, after due

verification, admitted the entire claim of the Appellant towards provident

fund dues. The approved list of creditors as on 20.07.2023, placed at page

134 of the appeal, categorically records that the Appellant's claim of

Rs.22,49,956/- was fully admitted. The list further reflects that the

Appellant, being EPFO, was categorised as an Operational Creditor

representing Government dues, with no contingent or disputed component.

Thus, there was no ambiguity or dispute regarding either the quantum or

nature of the Appellant's claim at any stage of the CIRP.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -8-

9. Ld. Counsel further submits that thereafter, the Resolution Plan was

approved by the Committee of Creditors and an application was filed by the

Resolution Professional before the Learned NCLT, Kolkata Bench for

approval of the Resolution Plan. It is evident from the Resolution Plan, that

the Resolution Applicant proposed a grossly inadequate payment towards

provident fund dues, limiting the payment to only Rs. 73,120/-. The

Learned NCLT, while approving the said Resolution Plan, erroneously

excluded the statutory damages under Section 14B and the statutory

interest under Section 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, without recording any

justification or reasoning. The approved plan thus provides for payment of

only 1.65% of the total admitted provident fund claim, which is ex facie

contrary to law and defeats the mandatory nature of provident fund dues.

10. The Appellant submits that the exclusion of statutory components of

provident fund dues is directly contrary to the settled position of law laid

down by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this

Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal in 'Anuj Bajpai v. Employees' Provident Fund

Organisation', [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1141 of 2023], as well as in

'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Ashish Chhawchhria (Jet

Airways)', [Company Appeal (AT) No. 752 of 2022]. In both these

judgments, it has been categorically held that provident fund dues include

not only the principal contribution assessed under Section 7A but also the

statutory interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B, all of

which are required to be paid in full and cannot be compromised or reduced

under a Resolution Plan. It is submitted that the impugned order is in

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -9-

direct conflict with these binding precedents and, therefore, cannot be

sustained.

11. Ld. Counsel submits that under the EPF & MP Act, the Appellant is

statutorily empowered to recover provident fund contributions, levy interest

for delayed payment, and impose damages for default. These powers are

not discretionary but mandatory in nature. The failure of the Corporate

Debtor to remit provident fund dues within time automatically attracts the

levy of interest and damages under the statute. Any Resolution Plan that

seeks to waive or dilute these statutory liabilities is contrary to law and

liable to be set aside.

12. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Respondents have sought to

rely upon the judgment in 'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vatwa,

EPFO v. Manish Bhagat', [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 808 of

2022], decided on 11.10.2023, to claim exemption from payment of

statutory dues. In this regard, Appellant made 3 submissions, the first

being, that the said judgment was never relied upon before the Learned

NCLT at the time of approval of the Resolution Plan and, therefore, cannot

be pressed into service at the appellate stage to justify the illegality of the

impugned order. Secondly, without prejudice, even the said judgment

grants exemption only with respect to damages under Section 14B and does

not exempt payment of statutory interest under Section 7Q. Hence, no

exemption from payment of interest can be claimed. Thirdly, the said

judgment is per incuriam, being contrary to the binding judgments of this

Hon'ble Tribunal in Anuj Bajpai and Jet Airways.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -10-

13. It is submitted that the Respondents have also relied upon the

judgment in 'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Delhi

(Central) v. Harry Dhaul' [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1691 of 2024] to contend

that the Appellant's claim is uncrystallised. In this regard, it is respectfully

submitted that a statutory appeal against the said judgment is presently

pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the said

judgment has not attained finality and cannot be treated as binding

precedent. It is further submitted that as per the statutory scheme, prior

to commencement of assessment proceedings under Sections 7A, 7Q, and

14B, the Enforcement Officer prepares a report based on which a show

cause notice is issued, followed by adjudication culminating in a final

order. The Appellant cannot be placed in an impossible situation where it

is restrained from continuing assessment proceedings during CIRP,

prevented from continuing proceedings after approval of the Resolution

Plan, and simultaneously denied the right to file its claim based on official

records. Such an interpretation would render the statutory framework

unworkable and defeat the object of the EPF & MP Act.

14. In view of the above submissions, counsel for the Appellant

respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct

payment of provident fund dues in entirety, including the principal amount

under Section 7A, statutory interest under Section 7Q, and statutory

damages under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act, aggregating to

Rs.22,49,956/-, and to set aside the impugned order to the extent it

excludes these statutory dues.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -11-

Submission of Respondent No. 1/Resolution Professional

15. Ld. Counsel submits that Respondent No. 1 is the Chairperson of the

Monitoring Committee of Power Max (India) Private Limited and is fully

conversant with the facts and records of the present matter. The Reply

Affidavit has been filed on the basis of official records, correspondence

exchanged with the Appellant, and orders passed by the Adjudicating

Authority, and therefore deserves full evidentiary value.

16. Ld. Counsel respectfully submits that the present appeal filed by the

Appellant/Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) is

misconceived both in law and on facts and deserves outright dismissal. The

appeal seeks to reopen issues which already stand concluded under the

Code and also attempts to accord priority to claims which were neither

crystallised nor finally adjudicated prior to commencement of the Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process.

17. It is the submission of Respondent No. 1 that the appeal is not

maintainable either in law or on facts. The Appellant seeks to challenge the

approval of a Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC without

demonstrating any violation of Section 30(2) of the IBC. The Appellant has

failed to establish how the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional

error, material irregularity, or perversity warranting appellate interference.

18. It is his submission that the scope of interference by this Appellate

Tribunal against an approved Resolution Plan is extremely limited. The

Appellant has not demonstrated any non-compliance with mandatory

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -12-

statutory provisions, nor has it shown that any admitted statutory dues

have been extinguished.

19. It is submitted by the RP that prior to the commencement of CIRP,

the Appellant had not passed any final adjudication or determination order

under either Section 7A or Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("EPF Act"). The proceedings

initiated by the Appellant were admittedly at a preliminary stage. He

submits that the summons dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Appellant itself

demonstrates that no final assessment, quantification, or determination of

liability had been carried out prior to the insolvency commencement date.

The issuance of summons merely calling upon the Corporate Debtor to

appear cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be equated with a crystallised

statutory liability.

20. It is the submission of Respondent No. 1 that after commencement

of CIRP, the IRP and subsequently the Resolution Professional ("RP")

repeatedly requested the Appellant to furnish complete details of

employees, contribution period-wise breakup, computation methodology,

and final quantified amounts. Copies of emails dated 26.07.2024,

07.08.2024, and 23.08.2024 exchanged between the parties are annexed

to the Reply Affidavit.

21. It is submitted that despite repeated follow-ups, the Appellant failed

to furnish any final adjudication order or conclusive computation of

interest and damages. The Appellant merely forwarded copies of summons

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -13-

and incomplete annexures, which were insufficient to treat such claims as

final or enforceable.

22. It is further submitted that the IRP and RP acted strictly in

accordance with law and admitted only such claims, which were supported

by undisputed records and final computation. There was no occasion to

admit speculative, contingent, or unadjudicated claims for interest and

damages.

23. Ld. Counsel submits that after completion of the entire CIRP process,

including verification of claims, constitution of Committee of Creditors,

evaluation of resolution plans, and compliance with Section 30 of the IBC,

the Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant was

approved by the Hon'ble NCLT, Kolkata Bench vide order dated 17.05.2024.

24. He submitted that once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section

31 of the IBC, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, including statutory

authorities such as the EPFO. The Appellant cannot be permitted to

circumvent the binding effect of the Resolution Plan by belatedly asserting

claims which were neither final nor crystallised.

25. Respondent No. 1 submits that the allegation that the Resolution

Plan violating Section 30(2) of the IBC is wholly erroneous. The Resolution

Plan does not extinguish any admitted provident fund dues and fully

complies with statutory requirements. It is submitted that Section 30 does

not mandate inclusion of contingent or unadjudicated statutory claims.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -14-

The Appellant's attempt to treat interest and damages, without final

adjudication, as mandatory dues is legally unsustainable.

26. Ld. Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Appellate

Tribunal in 'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shri Menish Kumar

Bhagat & Anr.', dated 11.10.2023, wherein it has been categorically held

that damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act are discretionary in nature

and subject to waiver. It is submitted that with the repeal of the Sick

Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the advent of the

IBC, the insolvency framework now governs corporate rehabilitation. The

power to recommend waiver of damages, earlier vested with BIFR, can now

be exercised within the insolvency regime.

27. Respondent No. 1 submits that in absence of any final order under

Sections 7Q or 14B of the EPF Act, the Appellant's claim remains

uncrystallised and cannot be accorded priority treatment under the IBC

framework. It is submitted that priority under the IBC arises only in respect

of dues which are legally enforceable as on the insolvency commencement

date. Pending proceedings do not create vested rights.

28. Respondent No. 1 further submits that the impugned order dated

17.05.2024 is well-reasoned, legally sound, and based on correct

appreciation of facts and law. The Adjudicating Authority rightly concluded

that there was no final EPFO determination prior to CIRP and therefore no

violation of statutory provisions.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -15-

29. Ld. Counsel submits that if the reliefs sought by the Appellant are

granted, the Corporate Debtor would be placed in a severely prejudicial

position. The entire resolution process would be rendered uncertain,

defeating the very object of the IBC, which is timely resolution and revival

of stressed entities.

30. In view of the aforesaid facts, submissions, documents, and settled

legal position, counsel for Respondent No. 1 prays for dismissal of the

appeal with costs.

Submission of Respondent No. 2/ SRA

31. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that M/s Shyam

Enterprises (SRA), participated in the CIRP in accordance with law and

submitted its Resolution Plan dated 26th December, 2023. The said

Resolution Plan was placed before the Committee of Creditors for

consideration, along with all other statutory compliances as required under

the IBC and the CIRP Regulations.

32. Ld. Counsel submits that after due deliberation, the Committee of

Creditors, in its 9th meeting held on 27th December, 2023, approved the

Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No.2. The voting process was

conducted through e-voting between 29th December, 2023 and 02nd

February, 2024, and the Resolution Plan was approved with 100% voting

share, resulting in Respondent No.2 being declared as the Successful

Resolution Applicant. He further submitted that the approved Resolution

Plan was thereafter placed before the Learned Adjudicating Authority,

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -16-

which, after examining the plan under Section 31 of the Code and being

satisfied that the plan met all statutory requirements, approved the

Resolution Plan by order dated 17th May, 2024.

33. Ld. Counsel submits that under the approved Resolution Plan, a sum

of Rs. 73,120/- was specifically earmarked and provided towards provident

fund dues payable under the Employees' Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This amount represented 100% of the

principal provident fund dues as determined under Section 7A of the EPF

& MP Act.

34. Ld. Counsel further submits that the present appeal has been filed

by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation assailing the approval

order dated 17th May, 2024 on an entirely misconceived and erroneous

understanding of both facts and law. The Appellant has alleged that

purported dues under Section 14B (damages) and Section 7Q (interest) of

the EPFMP Act amounting to Rs. 21,76,836/- were not provided for in the

Resolution Plan.

35. It is his submission that this allegation is wholly misleading and

untenable, as the Resolution Plan categorically provides for payment of the

entire principal provident fund dues amounting to Rs. 73,120/-, being the

complete amount crystallised under Section 7A of the EPFMP Act. The

relevant provisions of the Resolution Plan clearly reflect compliance with

statutory obligations.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -17-

36. Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellant's claim towards damages and

interest under Sections 7Q and 14B was based solely on a Form-B dated

18th May, 2023, wherein the Appellant relied upon a summon dated 10th

May, 2023 accompanied by a calculation sheet for the period from 21st

February, 2014 to 01st May, 2023.

37. It is submitted that the said summon dated 10th May, 2023 is not a

final adjudication or assessment order. The summon merely initiated

proceedings and granted an opportunity of hearing to the Corporate Debtor.

No final determination of liability had been made prior to commencement

of CIRP.

38. Ld. Counsel submits that in absence of any final order under

Sections 7Q and 14B, the alleged claim remained uncrystallised. An

uncrystallised claim cannot be treated as an admitted or enforceable

liability in CIRP and cannot be mandatorily provided for in a Resolution

Plan.

39. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal has

consistently held that claims under Sections 7Q and 14B based merely on

calculation sheets, summons, or enforcement officers' reports, without final

adjudication, are uncrystallised and liable to be rejected.

40. Ld. Counsel submits that it is an admitted position on record that

the Appellant sought to initiate proceedings under Sections 7Q and 14B by

issuing a summon dated 10th May, 2023. However, the Corporate Debtor

had already been admitted into CIRP on 01st May, 2023, and the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -18-

moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC had come into force from that date.

It is submitted that the moratorium remained in operation till approval of

the Resolution Plan on 17th May, 2024. During this period, the Appellant

was statutorily barred under Section 14(1)(a) of the Code from initiating or

continuing any proceedings against the Corporate Debtor.

41. Ld. Counsel further submits that in absence of any final assessment

order having been passed prior to commencement of CIRP, the Appellant

cannot, during moratorium, seek to create fresh liabilities on the Corporate

Debtor under the guise of assessment proceedings under Sections 7Q and

14B of the EPFMP Act. It is submitted that Section 14 of the Code clearly

prohibits continuation or initiation of any proceedings which have the effect

of depleting the assets of the Corporate Debtor or creating new liabilities.

Assessment proceedings before the EPFO, if permitted during moratorium,

would directly violate the object and mandate of Section 14.

42. It is his submission that this legal position stands conclusively

settled by several judgments of this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, which have

consistently held that no assessment proceedings under the EPFMP Act

can be initiated or continued once moratorium is imposed.

43. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel places reliance on the

following judgments:

(i) 'Employees Provident Fund vs. Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani', [Company

Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 1062 of 2024], order dated 03rd January, 2025,

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -19-

wherein this Hon'ble Tribunal held that uncrystallised EPF claims

cannot be enforced during moratorium.

(ii) 'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Harry Dhaul & Ors.',

[Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 1752 of 2024], order dated 18th

September, 2025, reiterating that assessment proceedings during

moratorium are impermissible.

(iii) 'The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II vs. Vineeta Maheswari,

RP of Bloom Dekor Ltd.', [Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 1618 of

2024], order dated 08th September, 2025, wherein it was held that

claims under Sections 7Q and 14B must crystallise prior to

insolvency commencement.

(iv) 'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vatwa, EPFO vs. Shri Manish

Kumar Bhagat & Ors.', [Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 808 of 2022],

order dated 11th October, 2023, affirming that moratorium bars

EPFO assessment proceedings.

44. Ld. Counsel submits that in light of the above settled legal position,

the provision of Rs. 73,120/- under the approved Resolution Plan towards

provident fund dues is fully consistent with law. The claims for damages

and interest under Sections 7Q and 14B had not crystallised prior to

insolvency commencement and were therefore incapable of being provided

for.

45. Summing up Ld. Counsel submits that the approved Resolution Plan

is in strict consonance with the EPF & MP Act and does not violate Section

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -20-

30(2)(e) of the IBC in any manner whatsoever. The present appeal is devoid

of merit, proceeds on an erroneous understanding of law and facts, and

deserves to be dismissed in limine.

Analysis and findings

46. We have heard the parties, gone through the records of the case and

written submissions of Appellant and Respondent No.2. The Respondent

No.1 has not filed his written submissions.

47. The Appellant, Employees Provident Fund Organisation contends

that the liability to pay interest under Section 7Q and damages under

Section 14B of the EPF Act arises automatically upon default in remittance

of provident fund contributions. It is submitted that these liabilities are

statutory in nature and do not depend upon any discretionary

adjudication. According to the Appellant, once default occurs, interest and

damages follow as a matter of law, and therefore the entire claim amounting

to Rs. 22,49,956/- should have been treated as fully payable under the

Resolution Plan. It is further argued that the Resolution Professional had

admitted the entire claim, and hence there was no justification for

approving a plan which provided payment only of Rs. 73,120/-. The

Appellant asserts that exclusion of Sections 7Q and 14B dues defeats the

protective intent of the EPF Act and violates settled judicial precedents

holding that provident fund dues must be paid in full.

48. On the other hand, Respondent No.1/RP submits that the Resolution

Plan has been approved strictly in accordance with the provisions of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It is contended that as on the date

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -21-

of commencement of CIRP, i.e., 01.05.2023, the only amount which stood

finally determined under the EPF Act was the provident fund contribution

under Section 7A. It is submitted that the Appellant's claim towards

interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B was based only

on a summons issued for initiation of proceedings and not on any final

adjudicatory order. Respondent No.1 asserts that proceedings under EPFO

Act had not culminated into any final determination prior to the imposition

of moratorium and, therefore, the said amounts could not be treated as

crystallised dues. It is further contended that once moratorium came into

force, no assessment proceedings could legally continue, and the

Resolution Professional was justified in recognising only those statutory

dues which had attained finality.

49. It is the submission of the Respondent No.2/Successful Resolution

Applicant that the Resolution Plan consciously and lawfully provides for

100% payment of provident fund contributions as determined under

Section 7A of the EPF Act, thereby fully safeguarding employees' statutory

rights. It is contended that the Appellant is seeking to impose liability

towards interest and damages which had not been adjudicated or

quantified prior to CIRP and which, therefore, remained contingent in

nature. Respondent No.2 submits that fastening such undecided liabilities

upon a Resolution Applicant would defeat the core objective of the IBC,

which is to provide finality and certainty to resolution. It is further

contended that the Resolution Applicant cannot be burdened with liabilities

arising from proceedings which were neither concluded nor capable of

being concluded due to the statutory moratorium. On these grounds,

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -22-

Respondent No.2 submits that exclusion of Sections 7Q and 14B amounts

from the Resolution Plan is legally justified and does not render the plan

non-compliant.

50. Based on the contention of the parties, we now proceed to frame the

issue involved in the present appeal:

(i) Whether the amounts claimed by the Appellant towards interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act, in the absence of any adjudication by the EPFO authorities, can be treated as crystallised dues payable under the Resolution Plan?

51. This issue has to examined in the context of timelines of various

events in this CIRP proceedings. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 01.05.2023. The appellant filed

its total claim of Rs. 22,49,956/- on 18.05.2023, before the Resolution

Professional which included claim under Section 7A relating to employees

and employers' contribution; claim under Section 7Q towards interest; and

damages under Section 14B of EPF & MP Act, 1952. The Resolution Plan

approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 17.05.2024 provides only for

payment of Rs. 73,120/-, being the provident fund contribution determined

under Section 7A of the EPF Act.

52. The dispute is only in relation to the amount claimed by the Appellant

towards interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B,

forming part of the total claim of Rs. 22,49,956/-. Whether these amounts

had legally crystallised as payable dues as on 01.05.2023, i.e. the CIRP

commencement date.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -23-

53. The sequence of dates assumes significance in the present case. The

Corporate Debtor entered CIRP on 01.05.2023. The Appellant's own record

shows that proceedings relating to interest and damages were initiated by

issuance of a summons dated 10.05.2023, that is, after commencement of

CIRP. A copy of summons dated 10.05.2023 is extracted below:

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -24-

54. We note that the said summons granted opportunity of hearing to

the Corporate Debtor and did not determine any liability. No final order

quantifying interest under Section 7Q or damages under Section 14B,

passed prior to 01.05.2023, has been produced before this Tribunal. In

fact, no such order passed by EPFO Authorities during the CIRP Process

has been brought to our notice.

55. Subsequently, the appellant filed its claim before the IRP vide letter

dated 15.05.2023. In this letter break up of PF claim under Section 7A;

interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B were specially

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -25-

mentioned. The total claim of PF dues was Rs. 22,49,956/-. The same

amount was later filed in Form-B. The letter dated 15.05.2023 is extracted

below:

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -26-

56. We note from the aforesaid letter that

(i) the dues of Provident Fund for the period 01.07.2022 to 30.04.2023

amounted to Rs. 73,120/- as per the report of Enforcement Officer

dated 12.05.2023. The balance amount of the claim related to

Interest under Section 7Q and Damages under Section 14B.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -27-

(ii) The EPFO has further stated that the above said dues are not final

and may increase, as the inspection of the establishment could not

be completed. They have further stated that the final demand can be

raised only after the completion of the inspection.

57. It is the admitted position from the documents that the claims of

appellant under Section 7Q and Section 14B had not been adjudicated

prior to the date of initiation of CIRP and therefore the claims were not

crystalized.

58. While the Appellant filed its claim in Form-B on 18.05.2023, filing of

a claim during CIRP cannot substitute the requirement of a statutory

adjudication under the EPF Act. Admission of a claim by the Resolution

Professional is for the purpose of collation and does not amount to final

determination of liability, particularly where the statute itself contemplates

an adjudicatory process.

59. It is also material that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC

remained in force from 01.05.2023 till the approval of the Resolution Plan

on 17.05.2024. During this entire period, no proceedings could lawfully

continue, which would have the effect of creating or enhancing liabilities of

the Corporate Debtor. Determination of interest and damages would

necessarily result in enhancement of liability beyond what stood

determined on the insolvency commencement date.

60. We also note that the Resolution Plan, approved on 17.05.2024

ensures full payment of the provident fund contribution of the employees

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -28-

under Section 7A amounting to Rs. 73,120/-, for the period prior to

initiation of CIRP. Thus, the plan fully protects the employee-related dues

under the EPF Act. In contrast, interest and damages, which require

adjudication and quantification, had not crossed the threshold from

potential liability to enforceable debt as on 01.05.2023.

61. The insolvency framework places emphasis on certainty as on the

insolvency commencement date. Allowing unadjudicated statutory claims,

initiated after commencement of CIRP, to be treated as crystallised dues

would blur this certainty and expose resolution applicants to indeterminate

liabilities arising from incomplete proceedings.

62. The appellant has placed reliance on the Judgment of this Tribunal

in Anuj Bajpai (supra) and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v.

Ashish Chhawchhria (Jet Airways) (supra). We now have a look at aforesaid

Judgments.

63. In the Anuj Bajpai (supra), the EPFO had filed their claims before

the IRP of the Corporate Debtor. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor was

ordered to be liquidated. The appellant Anuj Bajpai, the Liquidator in the

case, asked the respondents (EPFO Authorities) to file their claims during

the liquidation period. The appellant's contention in the liquidation was

that the Corporate Debtor did not maintain separate funds with respect to

pension fund and provident fund and therefore according to the appellant

the claims of the respondents were to be treated under the waterfall

mechanism as per the Section 53 of the Code. Respondents on the other

hand submitted that interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -29-

14B are levied after following statutory procedures and are imposed due to

delayed remittance of dues by the employers and that these dues are rights

of workers which cannot be treated as assets of the Corporate Debtor and

therefore stand in priority of payment as per statutory scheme provided in

the EPF act and do not fall in the water fall mechanism. It was held in the

Judgment that dues of the workmen and employees from Provident fund,

and gratuity fund are not to form the assets of the liquidation estate and

as such they cannot be treated under the Water Fall mechanism under

Section 53. There are two distinguishing features in the present matter vis-

à-vis Anuj Bajpai's case. Firstly, the case related to liquidation wherein the

EPFO authorities can continue and complete the proceedings under the Act

to determine the liability under Section 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act.

Secondly, the claim of workmen/ employees was already crystalized and

therefore payable. The ratio of the Anuj Bajpai (supra) is therefore not

applicable in this case.

64. We now have a look at the Judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in

'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Ashish Chhawchhria (Jet

Airways)' (supra). In this matter, this Appellate Tribunal examined the

nature of damages imposed under Section 14B of the EPF Act and held that

such damages are not automatic, but are discretionary in nature and

subject to waiver depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Tribunal further observed that with the repeal of the Sick Industrial

Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the introduction of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the framework for corporate

rehabilitation now stands governed by the IBC. Applying this principle to

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -30-

the present case, where no final order imposing damages under Section

14B had been passed prior to commencement of CIRP on 01.05.2023, we

find that the Appellant cannot claim damages as a fixed or crystallised

liability and the said judgment supports the Respondents' case that such

damages are neither automatic nor mandatorily payable in the Resolution

Plan.

65. We now examine the cases cited by Respondent No.2. In 'Employees

Provident Fund vs. Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani' [Company Appeal (AT)(INS)

No. 1062 of 2024], order dated 03.01.2025, this Appellate Tribunal dealt

with the effect of moratorium on EPFO proceedings in 'Employees Provident

Fund Organisation v. Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani', (supra). The relevant paras

9 to 13 of the Judgment are extracted below:

"9. From the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties,

following issues arise for consideration:

(1) Whether after imposition of moratorium under Section 14 of the

IBC, assessment proceedings can be carried on by the EPFO under

Section 7A, 14B and 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952.

(2) Whether any claim on the basis of assessment, subsequent to

imposition of moratorium, can be admitted in the CIRP.

(3) Whether claims, which were filed by the Appellant(s),

subsequent to the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC, could

have been admitted in the CIRP.

Question Nos. (1) & (2)

Question Nos.(1) & (2) being interrelated, are being taken together.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -31-

10. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1062 of 2024, CIRP was

initiated vide order dated 03.05.2021 and the assessment order

under Section 7A was passed on 11.08.2023 and order under

Section 14B and 7Q was issued on 16.08.2023. In Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1065 of 2024, the CIRP against the CD

commenced on 12.07.2021 and assessment order under Section

7A was passed on 29.08.2022. It is an admitted position that in

both the cases, assessment orders under Section 7A, 14B and 7Q

were passed subsequent to initiation of CIRP against the CD.

Moratorium under Section 14 was imposed by the Adjudicating

Authority, initiation CIRP. Section 14(1) of the IBC provides as

follows:

"14. Moratorium. -

(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the

insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority

shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the

following, namely:-

(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or

proceedings against the corporate debtor including

execution of any judgement, decree or order in any court of law,

tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;

(b)transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing off by the

corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial

interest therein;

(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security

interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its

property including any action under the Securitisation and

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -32-

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002);

(d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where

such property is occupied by or in the possession of the

corporate debtor.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby

clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other

law for the time being in force, a licence, permit, registration,

quota, concession, clearance or a similar grant or right given by

the Central Government, State Government, local authority,

sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any

other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or

terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the

condition that there is no default in payment of current dues

arising for the use or continuation of the license or a similar

grant or right during moratorium period."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider effect

and consequence of imposition of moratorium. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in (2020) 13 SCC 208 - Rejendra K. Bhutta vs.

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development and Anr. held that

after the imposition of moratorium, a statutory freeze takes place.

In paragraph 25 of the judgment, following was held:

"25. There is no doubt whatsoever that important functions

relating to repairs and reconstruction of dilapidated buildings

are given to MHADA. Equally, there is no doubt that in a given

set of circumstances, the Board may, on such terms and

conditions as may be agreed upon, and with the previous

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -33-

approval of the Authority, hand over execution of any housing

scheme under its own supervision. However, when it comes to

any clash between MHADA Act and the Insolvency Code, on

the plain terms of Section 238 of the Insolvency Code, the Code

must prevail. This is for the very good reason that when a

moratorium is spoken of by Section 14 of the Code, the idea is

that, to alleviate corporate sickness, a statutory status quo is

pronounced under Section 14 the moment a petition is

admitted under Section 7 of the Code, so that the insolvency

resolution process may proceed unhindered by any of the

obstacles that would otherwise be caused and that are dealt

with by Section 14. The statutory freeze that has thus been

made is, unlike its predecessor in the SICA, 1985 only a

limited one, which is expressly limited by Section 31(3) of the

Code, to the date of admission of an insolvency petition up to

the date that the adjudicating authority either allows a

resolution plan to come into effect or states that the corporate

debtor must go into the liquidation. For this temporary period,

at least, all the things referred to under Section 14 must be

strictly observed so that the corporate debtor may finally be

put back on its feet albeit with a new management."

12. In (2021) 6 SCC 258 - P. Mohanraj and Ors. Vs. Shah Brothers

ISPAT Pvt. Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to

interpret the expression "proceeding" in Section 14. The object and

purpose of moratorium has been captured in paragraph 30 of the

judgment, which is as follows:

"30. It can be seen that Para 8.11 refers to the very judgment

under appeal before us, and cannot therefore be said to throw

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -34-

any light on the correct position in law which has only to be

finally settled by this Court. However, Para 8.2 is important in

that the object of a moratorium provision such as Section 14 is

to see that there is no depletion of a corporate debtor's assets

during the insolvency resolution process so that it can be kept

running as a going concern during this time, thus maximising

value for all stakeholders. The idea is that it facilitates the

continued operation of the business of the corporate debtor to

allow it breathing space to organise its affairs so that a new

management may ultimately take over and bring the corporate

debtor out of financial sickness, thus benefitting all

stakeholders, which would include workmen of the corporate

debtor. Also, the judgment of this Court in Swiss Ribbons (P)

Ltd. v. Union of India [Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,

(2019) 4 SCC 17] states the raison d'être for Section 14 in para

28 as follows : (SCC p. 55)

"28. It can thus be seen that the primary focus of the legislation is to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor by protecting the corporate debtor from its own management and from a corporate death by liquidation. The Code is thus a beneficial legislation which puts the corporate debtor back on its feet, not being a mere recovery legislation for creditors. The interests of the corporate debtor have, therefore, been bifurcated and separated from that of its promoters/those who are in management. Thus, the resolution process is not adversarial to the corporate debtor but, in fact, protective of its interests. The moratorium imposed by Section 14 is in the interest of the corporate debtor itself, thereby preserving the assets of the corporate debtor during the resolution

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -35-

process. The timelines within which the resolution process is to take place again protect the corporate debtor's assets from further dilution, and also protects all its creditors and workers by seeing that the resolution process goes through as fast as possible so that another management can, through its entrepreneurial skills, resuscitate the corporate debtor to achieve all these ends."

13. The plain reading of Section 14, sub-section (1) indicates that

expression 'suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor' has

been used. The word 'proceeding' is not qualified, so as to confine

it to proceedings before the Civil Court. The proceedings, which

have the effect on the assets of the CD are all covered in the

expression 'proceeding'. The question to be answered is as to

whether after moratorium has been imposed, it was open for EPFO

to proceed with the assessment proceeding. Learned Counsel for

the parties state that during moratorium proceeding, no recovery

proceeding can be initiated against the CD. However, submissions

of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that assessment

proceedings against the CD may continue. Hence, the orders of

assessment passed during moratorium period, were fully

permissible and the claim on the basis of the said proceedings had

to be admitted in CIRP."

66. Based on the questions framed in para 9 of the aforesaid Judgment

of Pesumal Arlani (supra), this Appellate Tribunal gave the following

findings in para 24 of the Judgment in relation to question (1) and (2),

which is extracted below:

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -36-

"24. In view of the aforesaid, we answer Question Nos.(1) and (2)

in following manner:

(1) We hold that after initiation of moratorium under Section 14,

sub-section (1), no assessment proceedings can be continued by

the EPFO. If after an order of liquidation is passed, Section 33, sub-

section(5), does not prohibit initiation or continuation of

assessment proceedings.

(2) No claim on the basis of assessment carried during the

moratorium period, which is prohibited under Section 14(1) can be

pressed in the CIRP."

67. We note that the Tribunal examined admissibility of EPFO claims in

the CIRP proceedings, which had not been finally determined, before

commencement of CIRP. The Tribunal emphasised that insolvency

proceedings proceed on the basis of liabilities crystallised as on the

insolvency commencement date and that statutory claims which were still

pending adjudication cannot be allowed to attain finality during the

moratorium period. Applying this principle to the present case, we find that

the claims of the Appellant towards interest and damages were also not

finally determined prior to commencement of CIRP on 01.05.2023 and were

sought to be pursued thereafter. This judgment therefore squarely applies

to the present case and supports exclusion of uncrystallised EPF claims

from the Resolution Plan.

68. In 'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Harry Dhaul & Ors.'

[Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No. 1752 of 2024, order dated 18.09.2025], this

Tribunal dealt with the permissibility of EPFO assessment proceedings

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -37-

during the moratorium period. The Tribunal held that assessment

proceedings under the EPF Act have the effect of determining and

increasing liability and therefore cannot continue once moratorium under

Section 14 of the IBC is in force. In the present case, the Appellant's

reliance on proceedings initiated after 01.05.2023 suffers from the same

legal bar. We therefore find that this judgment directly supports the view

that the Appellant could not have crystallised its claim during the

moratorium.

69. The Appellant has argued that reliance on Harry Dhaul (supra) is not

correct, as an appeal against that judgment is pending before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. From the records of the said appeal, we note that no stay

has been granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Merely because an appeal is

pending does not mean that the ratio of the judgment of this Tribunal would

not apply. Unless the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed or set aside the

judgment, the Judgments of this Appellate Tribunal would continue to be

binding. Moreover, the principle laid down in that judgment that

uncrystallised EPF claims cannot be enforced during the moratorium, has

been consistently followed by this Tribunal in several cases. We are

therefore not inclined to agree with this submission of the appellant.

70. In 'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II vs. Vineeta Maheswari,

RP of Bloom Dekor Ltd.' [Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No. 1618 of 2024, order

dated 08.09.2025] this Tribunal clearly distinguished between provident

fund contributions already determined and consequential liabilities such

as interest and damages under Sections 7Q and 14B. It was held that while

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -38-

determined provident fund contributions are protected, claims towards

interest and damages must attain finality, before the insolvency

commencement date to be enforceable in CIRP. In the present case, only

the Section 7A dues had been determined prior to 01.05.2023, whereas

claims under Sections 7Q and 14B had not. The ratio of aforesaid decision

also applies to the present factual matrix.

71. In 'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vatwa, EPFO vs. Shri

Manish Kumar Bhagat & Ors.' [Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No. 808 of 2022,

order dated 11.10.2023], this Appellate Tribunal examined the effect of

moratorium on EPFO's power to assess and quantify damages and interest.

The Tribunal held that such powers remain in abeyance during CIRP, as

assessment would lead to enlargement of liability. In the present case as

well, the Appellant seeks to rely on proceedings, which had not culminated

into a final order prior to CIRP. We therefore find that this judgment

reinforces the position that EPFO assessment proceedings could not have

proceeded after 01.05.2023.

72. We note that the exclusion of claims towards Sections 7Q and 14B

flows from the factual position that such claims had not been finally

determined as on the insolvency commencement date. We also note that

this position has been affirmed through various judgments of this Tribunal.

73. We further note that Ld. Adjudicating Authority did not ignore any

adjudicated statutory liability; rather, it approved a Resolution Plan which

reflected the legal position as it stood on the relevant date. In the present

case, directing payment of unadjudicated claims under Sections 7Q and

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024 -39-

14B would have resulted in imposing uncertain and indeterminate

liabilities upon the Successful Resolution Applicant. Such a course would

be inconsistent with the object of the IBC, which seeks to freeze claims as

on the insolvency commencement date and provide certainty to the

resolution process.

74. We find no material on record to suggest that there was any

irregularity in approval of resolution plan. The approval of the Resolution

Plan was preceded by CoC approval, statutory scrutiny, and compliance

with procedural requirements. The decision to exclude uncrystallised

claims of the EPFO by the Adjudicating Authority was in accordance with

the provisions of the Code and legal precedence, accordingly we are of the

view that the impugned order does not warrant interference.

75. In view of findings above, the appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A.s, if

any, are closed. No order as to costs.

[Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/Pragya (LRA)

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024