Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Rajiv Bajaj (Liquidator Of ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Employees Provident Fund Organisation ...Appellant Versus Rajiv Bajaj Liquidator of Transtreasure Services India Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Varma, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Nipun Gautam, Advocate.

Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Liquidator in person.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

17.10.2024 : I.A. No. 6825 of 2024

1. This is an Application praying for condonation of 15 days delay in filing

of the Appeal.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the Paragraph 2 of

the Application which is as follows:

"2. A legal opinion was sought in the matter from the panel advocate which was received on 27.08.2024 Thereafter, Zonal level committee constituted for ZO thane for litigation management considered the facts of the case, legal opinion and unanimously recommended on 30.08.2024 for filing of Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Thereafter, Zonal Office Delhi assigned the case to the present advocate. The appeal was expeditiously prepared and submitted for approval to be filed before the Hon'ble NCLAT."

3. We find sufficient cause for condoning the delay set out in the

Application.

Delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1857 of 2024

1. Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Counsel appearing on behalf

of the Liquidator.

2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 23.07.2024 passed

by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,

Mumbai Bench, Court I) passed in I.A. 1743/2024. The I.A. was disposed of

by the Adjudicating Authority by directions issued in Paragraph 16.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is aggrieved by the observations

made in Paragraph 15 in the last line which are to the following extent:

"15. In so far as lien marked by respondent nos. 2,3 and 5 is concerned the lien having been marked after commencement of moratorium with effect from 22.08.2023 is in contravention of Section 40 of the Code and is illegal. Accordingly, the lien of Respondent nos. 2,3 and 5 shall be vacated by Respondent No. 1 with immediate effect. In so far as their claim are concerned, the applicant shall verify and admit their claim if not done so far. As regards claim of respondent no.5 their claim to the extent of employee contribution to the provident fund shall remain outside the liquidation estate and shall be dealt with in accordance with settled law in this record."

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that although he has

received an email from the Liquidator on 12.08.2024 informing that the claim

of the Applicant has been accepted since CIRP. It is submitted that when the

claim of the Appellant has been admitted the observations made in Paragraph

15 last line are creating certain confusion, clarity of which is required from

the Liquidator.

5. What Adjudicating Authority meant in Paragraph 15 is that extent of

employees contribution to the Provident Fund, that shall remain outside the

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1857 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6825 of 2024 2 of 3 Liquidation Estate to emphasise that the said amount is to be paid as per the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in the matter

of `Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association' Vs. `Ashish

Chhawchharia, Resolution Professional of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. &

Ors.' In Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 752/2021.

6. Liquidator having admitted the claim of the Appellant which is reflected

by the email, we do not find any reason or any ambiguity in Paragraph 15 of

Order as referred by the Appellant.

7. As observed above, the Paragraph 15 last line only emphasised that the

said amount claim to the extent of the employees fund has to be outside the

Liquidation Estate so that the said amount be payable to that extent.

With the above observations, we dispose of the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1857 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6825 of 2024 3 of 3