Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Ss Natural Resources Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Employees Provident Fund ...Appellants Organisation, Barrackpore Versus SS Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Advocate. For Respondents : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

06.01.2026: Heard counsel for the Appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.08.2025 by which

order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the IA No. 669/2021 filed by the

appellant. The CIRP against the corporate debtor commenced on 08.01.2018.

The public announcement was made on 10.01.2018. Assessment against the

Corporate Debtor u/s 7A, 7Q and 14B was made with respect to which an

appeal was filed by the corporate debtor being ATA No. 476(15) of 2016 in

which an order was passed by the Appellate Authority on 02.06.2016. The

appellant, however, did not file any claim after commencement of the CIRP

and the resolution plan submitted by Respondent No.1 was approved by the

Committee of Creditors on 04.09.2019. The appeal which was filed by the

corporate debtor also came to be dismissed on 17.12.2019. The appellant filed

its claim on 02.03.2020 which was not accepted hence the IA was filed which

came to be rejected by the impugned order.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that in

view of the fact that interim order dated 02.06.2016 was operating in the

appeal filed by the corporate debtor appellant could not have filed the claim.

The appellant filed the claim once the appeal was dismissed on 17.12.2019.

4. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

5. The order dated 02.06.2016 passed in the appeal filed by the corporate

debtor is brought on record which order reads as under:-

"ORDER Dated: 02.06.2016

Present: Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mahanta, Advocate for the Respondent

The present appeal filed by appellant under section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (here-in-after shall be referred as 'the Act') against the order dated 09.01.2015 (in short impugned order) passed by the respondent u/s 14B & 7Q of the Act.

As per case of appellant, copy of impugned order was supplied to the appellant on 17.03.2016 and thereafter appellant filed appeal within limitation.

On the other hand, it is submitted by respondent that sometime be granted for verification from the official record that on which date copy of impugned order was supplied to the appellant. At this stage, counsel for appellant requested for stay of operation of impugned order. Keeping in view respondent is restrained from recovery of more than 30% of the assessed amount till further orders.

Now come upon 07.11.2016 for filing counter reply. Limitation in filing of appeal shall also be considered on that date."

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1718 of 2025 The above order in no manner preclude the appellant to file its claim when

CIRP commenced on 08.01.2018. The interim order was passed on

02.06.2016 that to only putting some restraint for recovery of more than 30%

of the assessed amount, which order cannot be read as an impediment in the

appellant to file its claim in the CIRP which commenced much subsequent to

the above order.

6. We thus are of the view that reasons sought to be canvassed by the

appellant for not able to file the claim in pursuance of the publication issued

by the RP has no legs to stand. Admittedly, the resolution plan was approved

on 04.09.2019 that is much before filing of the claim. The Adjudicating

Authority thus did not commit any error in rejecting the claim filed by the

appellant praying for acceptance of claim which was filed after approval of the

plan by the Committee of Creditor. We do not find any error in the order,

appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1718 of 2025