Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Subhlaxmi Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of the Order dated 28.03.2025, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in IA (IB) (Plan) No. 3/CB/2024 in CP (IB) No. 14/CB/2021]

IN THE MATTER OF: Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office - Chhattisgarh, Block-D, Scheme-32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur - 492004 ...Appellant

Versus

1. Subhlaxmi Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd Unit No. 111, ACY-Aggarwal City Square, PLOT No. 10, District Centre Manglam Place, Sector-3 Rohini, New Delhi-110085 ...Respondent No.1

2. Ajay Gupta Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Metistech Fabrication Private Limited 7-A, Sidhartha Extension, Pocket-B, New Delhi - 110014 ...Respondent No.2

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Varma, Advocate

For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)]

This is an Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2006 against the Impugned Order dated 28.03.2025 passed in IA (IB) (Plan) No. 3/CB/2024 IN CP (IB) No. 14/CB/2021, by National Company Law

Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.

2. We have heard counsels of both sides and perused materials placed on

record.

3. Appellant - EPFO has sought relief to set aside the Resolution Plan

approved by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench vide

order dated 28.03.2025 in I.A. (IB)(Plan) No. 3/CB/2024 in CP (IB) No.

14/CB/2021. The main reason for appeal is that while approving the

Resolution Plan against the claim of ₹18,35,528/- towards FP dues,

provisions of only ₹5,000/- mainly on the grounds that no claim was

submitted by EPFO.

4. To appreciate the Appellant's case, we look into the chronology of

events, which is discussed hereinafter:

o CIRP of the Corporate Debtor (M/s Metistech Fabrication Private

Limited was initiated on 01.11.2023. Thereafter, on 03.11.2023, RP

published Form A to invite the claims from creditors. RP also sent

intimation to the Appellant - EPFO on 21.11.2023 regarding initiation

of CIR Proceedings and clearly conveyed about moratorium under

Section 14 of the Code.

o In response to above communication from RP, EPFO (Regional PF

Commissioner) on 22.12.2023 filed its claim of ₹50,676/- in a letter

form but not in proper format and claimed that their dues are neither

financial debt nor operational debt and conveyed that these dues

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 2 of 18 pertains only to damages, interest and short remittances by the

establishment and as regards principal, they will be conveyed in due

course.

o RP requested EPFO on 22.12.2023 itself to submit claims as per

format with supporting documents.

o Later on EPFO informed that their area enforcement officer has

reported the total dues of establishment for the period 2020-21 & 2021-

22 to be ₹8,12,760/- basis the salary sheets provided by RP (as received

from the suspended management), which included all the employees

(also including the excluded employees).

o EPFO crystallised a demand of Rs 18,33,528/- (Rs 8,12,760

under 7A and Rs 9,70,092 under interest and damages) on the basis of

an enquiry initiated by the EPFO department.

o Meanwhile Form G was published by RP on 30.12.2023 for

inviting EoIs. Respondent No.1 - SRA submitted a Resolution Plan of

total value of ₹45,00,000/- out of which ₹25,05,000/- was to be paid to

the creditors. A sum of ₹5,000/- was provisioned against the demand

of ₹18,33,528/- by EPFO along with a contingent liability clause

covering any future liability however not exceeding the total liability

beyond ₹25.05 lakh.

5. The Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No.1 was approved by

CoC on 21.09.2024 with 100% votes with IDBI as sole Financial Creditor.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 3 of 18 Thereafter, on 28.03.2025 the resolution plan of Respondent No.1 was

approved by the Adjudicating Authority, which is being impugned in this case.

6. We note that CIRP against the CD was initiated on 01.11.2023 and

thereafter only EPFO initiated assessment proceedings against the CD which

were carried out by EPFO during the moratorium under Section 14 of the

Code. It is to be noted that the EPFO - Appellant was aware about the

initiation of CIRP on 21.11.2023, through a formal communication by

Resolution Plan, in which the applicability of moratorium was also clearly

conveyed.

7. It is to be noted that EPFO initially made demand on 22.12.2023 for a

sum of ₹50,626/- for dues pertaining to 2020-2022 by the CD. Later on, basis

its inspection through Enforcement Officer, it was raised to ₹8,12,760/- on

22.12.2023. Subsequently on 28.12.2023, it was further revised to a demand

of ₹18,33,528/-, which included additional ₹9,70,092/- as interest and

damages.

8. The Appellant also claims that the EPF Act is a social welfare legislation

and provides for social security benefits of employees and workmen. The

measure of mandatory creation of the Employees Provident Fund by

establishments under the provisions of the EPF Act and the Employees'

Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 is as quoted by Justice V.R .Krishna Iyer in

Organo Chemicals Industries v. Union of India reported in 1979 AIR 1803

is "to create a financial reservoir for the distribution of benefits to employees

and workmen which is filled by the employer by deducting from the employees'

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 4 of 18 salaries and also by contributing its own equal share and duly making over the

gross sums to the Fund. If the employer neglects to remit or diverts the moneys

for alien purposes the Fund gets dry and the retiree employees are denied the

meagre support when they need it the most. This prospect of destitution

demoralizes the working class and frustrates the hopes of the community

itself". The provident fund dues are hard-earned money of the, which are

deducted from their salaries but not deposited by the employer with the EPFO

and the accrued interest thereon is not the asset of the Corporate Debtor but

truly the assets of the employees in custody of the Corporate Debtor. As per

Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Code, the entire employees provident fund dues are

not the assets of the Corporate Debtor and are not subject to distribution as

per Section 53(1) of the Code and therefore must be made in entirety to the

Appellant by the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant also claims that EPFO dues

are monies belonging to the employees, to be handed over by employers to

EPFO for investment and safekeeping. The entrustment of these monies with

the employers is merely a collection mechanism and is required to be

understood as an unredeemed operational debt under IBC. While deciding on

the statutory debt, the dues of The Employees' Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 need to be kept outside by the CoC and

paid in full by SRA. And for that it relies catena of judgments by Hon'ble

Supreme Court and NCLAT such as:

o Kushal Ltd. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- I, Civil Appeal No.1920 of 2020, decided on 20-05-2020 (SC);

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 5 of 18 o Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association v. Ashish Chhawchharia & Ors. [(2012) SCC OnLine NCLAT 418] dated 21/10/2022;

o Anuj Bajpai vs Employees Provident Fund Commissioner Com. Appl (AT)(Ins) 1141/2023.

9. We note that in this case, the books of accounts of the CD do not reflect,

the amount deducted from the salaries of the employees and there is no such

material on record that during the period of their employment any deductions

had happened and the amount was not deposited by the CD with the EPFO.

If it was so, it could not have been considered as asset of the CD. But in this

case, we find that assessment has been made by the EPFO post moratorium.

In this case, we find that there is no record to suggest that the Provident Fund

was deducted contemporaneously by the CD, as such no record existed with

the CD. An assessment was later on made by the EPFO basis, which is

prohibited during moratorium. Therefore, these judgments are of no avail to

the Appellant as the facts and circumstances are distinguishable in the

present case.

10. Appellant also contends that computation of EPFO claims cannot be

done by RP or NCLAT/NCLT. The main argument canvassed by the Appellant

is that as per procedure, before commencement of assessment proceedings

under Section 7A, 7Q and 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, the Enquiry Officer

prepares a report, based on which Show Cause Notice is issued to concerned

company, giving them a fair opportunity to produce documents and

assessment proceedings culminate into passing the final order under Section

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 6 of 18 7A of EPF Act. There cannot be a situation wherein: (a) EPFO cannot even

continue with assessment proceedings during CIRP, (b) EPFO cannot

continue with assessment after approval of Plan and claim from SRA later and

(c) cannot even file claim based on its official records without proceedings with

assessment. The claim cannot be rejected merely because it was based on

Enquiry Officer Report which does not amount to "assessment" as per Section

7A of the EPF Act.

11. The arguments presented herein by the Appellant are against the

scheme of the Code. We note that in this case assessment and claim by EPFO

was made after initiation of CIRP and during the period of moratorium. Thus,

it not mandatory for the RP to consider the same. RP also gets support from

the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in the matter of EPFO vs Jaykumar

Pesumal Arlani Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1062 of 2024

wherein it is held that after initiation of CIRP and imposition of moratorium

under section 14 of IBC, no assessment proceedings can be initiated or

continued by EPFO under section 7A, 7Q, 14B of EPF & MP Act and no claim

based on such assessment can be admitted in CIRP. The said ratio is further

affirmed in CA Pankaj Shah vs EPFO Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)

No.77 of 2025 that demands made by EPFO on the basis of inspection and

assessment orders passed during moratorium are unenforceable.

12. To further canvass its arguments, Appellant claims that on the order

passed under Section 7A, an appeal was filed by RP/CD wherein a conditional

order was passed on 18.10.2024 directing pre-deposit to be made within 30

days. Neither the RP nor SRA has confirmed whether such pre-deposit has

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 7 of 18 been made in pursuance to said order. Appellant claims that it has been held

in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. Vs Colelctor of Central Excise: 2013

(11) SCC 353 that when the period granted for pre-deposit has lapsed, the

inevitable result is dismissal of appeals. We find the case to be of no

assistance to the Appellants in the facts of the case, as such a situation will

arise in a non-insolvency matter and is not applicable on a case in which

moratorium is existing and that is the situation in this case.

13. Furthermore, we also note that the resolution plan duly provides for

contingency liability clause stating to make good any such claim subject to

the total amount under plan not exceeding ₹25.05 lacs. It is also to be noted

that not a single employee of CD has filed any claim during CIRP towards their

salary dues or pending PF contributions. We also observe that the Appellant

was provided sufficient opportunities to file the claim in appropriate format

but it did not do so. But even then, RP included the claim of the Appellant in

the Information Memorandum and later the SRA - R1 had noted the claim

and made appropriate provisions in the resolution plan. We also find that the

plan has already been approved both by CoC and also by the Adjudicating

Authority and EPFO is challenging it just on the basis that instead of total

claim of ₹18,33,528/- only ₹5,000/- towards EPFO dues has been provided

for.

14. Respondent-RP has relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar

Gupta (2019), Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019, wherein it was held that:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 8 of 18 "67. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate..."

We find that it surely supports the case of the SRA and also the RP.

15. Respondent-RP also relies on the following judgements:

a) Ghyanshyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss Asset

Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021 SCC OnLine SC 313), which upholds

the "Clean Slate" theory under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016. As follows in para 86:

"86. ...the plan conforms to the requirements as are provided in subsection (2) of Section 30 of the I&B Code. Onley thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority can grant its approval to the plan. It is at this stage, that the plan becomes binding on Corporate Debtor, its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution Plan. The legislative intent behind this is, to freeze all the claims so that the resolution applicant starts on a clean slate and is not flung with any surprise claims. If that is permitted, the very calculations on the basis of which the resolution applicant submits its plans, would go haywire and the plan would be unworkable..."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 9 of 18

b) Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S Esl Steel Limited) vs Ispat

Carrier Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2896 OF 2024 (Arising

out of SLP (C) No. 15823 of 2023) which upholds the following:

"50. ..... it is by now well settled that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub- section (1) of Section 31, all claims which are not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceeding in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan..."

We find that both above cited judgments also support the case of the

respondents.

16. The Appellant claims that its dues have been rejected on the ground

that dues are not filed in the prescribed format. Appellant places reliance on

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Greater Noida

Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni and Anr.

(2024) 6 SCC 767, wherein it was ruled that the Form in which a claim

is to be submitted is directory and not mandatory and what is important

is the claim must be supported by proof. The Appellant claims that the

statutory forms under the Regulations formulated under the code are

directory in nature and not mandatory, and the nature of Claim cannot be

overlooked merely on the basis of an incorrect form. However, the said aspect

was portrayed incorrectly by the Respondents.

17. We observe that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

resolution professional had noted the claim of the EPFO even though it was

not filed in the prescribed format. And it was included in the Information

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 10 of 18 Memorandum and the SRA had also acted upon that, therefore the facts of

the case are distinguishable and the judgment cited by the Appellant will not

be of any assistance to it.

18. Appellant tries to canvass the argument that AA was misled that after

commencement of CIRP the EPFO raised dues u/s 74 of EPF Act to the tune

of 18,33,528/-but no claim had been filed with respect to the same before the

RP. Based on the above misleading statement, provision for a meagre amount

of INR 5000/-was made against EPFO dues. We don't find such arguments to

be convincing as the IM notes the claims of EPFO even though not filed in

proper format and SRA also makes provision which is endorsed by CoC and

approved by AA. Perusal of the records reveal that even though the RP had

advised the Appellant to file the claim in appropriate format, the Appellant

had not filed them in those formats. Despite that Resolution Professional had

included the claims in the Information Memorandum and the SRA has also

provided for some amount for the EPFO.

19. The Appellant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court

of Bombay (Nagpur Bench), Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited and Ors. Vs.

The Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Writ Petition No. 693 of 2022 decided on 29.04.2025. The relevant para is

extracted as below:

"...

21. It would thus be apparent that since the employers provident fund contribution cannot be included in the definition of 'assets', in view of explanation (a) to Sec. 18(1) of the IB Code, there would be no obligation upon the provident fund department to lodge a claim

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 11 of 18 for the dues, in that regard with the IRP and get such claim verified so as to be included in the resolution plan.

21.1. Rule 12(2) of the IB Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, which requires a claim to be made with proof to the IRP on or before 90 days of the Insolvency commencement date, if a person fails to submit it within the time stipulated in the public notice / announcement, and Rule 13, which requires such claims to be verified by the IRP within 7 days from the last date of receipt of claims and to maintain a list of order form, will have to be construed in the context of the language of statutory provisions as contained in Chapter - II and specifically in light of the explanation (a) to Section 18 of the IB Code and in view of what has been held above."

20. We find that in this case, it is not the case that the RP had not taken

note of the claim of the EPFO. But RP included the claim in the Information

Memorandum and also the SRA had made necessary provisions.

21. Another issue which has been raised by EPFO is whether a lower pay

out towards Provident Fund dues can be approved in the resolution plan.

Perusal of the facts, show that on the basis of the analysis of books of

accounts, no amount is shown to be payable as Provident Fund dues. RP had

requested the EPFO to file the claims. EPFO initially filed a small amount and

then did its own inquiry and reassessment and filed a higher amount, which

is being disputed by the RP and ex-suspended director. On the date of

initiation of CIRP, there is nothing which is due to EPFO as per books of

accounts and at the maximum it could be ₹50,626/- which is also not basis

the books of accounts. But ₹5000/- has been provided in the resolution plan.

Without books of accounts on record, it is just a nominal amount and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 12 of 18 approved as per the commercial wisdom of the CoC and which is non-

justiciable. In case details of employees were available on record, situation

would have been different. But herein only assessment are being made

without EPF deductions being in Books of accounts. Without exact details of

employees, it cannot be said that the resolution plan provides for a very low

pay out towards Provident Fund dues. Moreover, it could not be done during

the moratorium.

22. Appellant also relies on the judgment Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner v. Prashant Jain Resolution Professional of Diamond

Power Infrastructure Limited & Ors. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 937 of 2022 and

relies on the following ratio:

"....

8. The amount u/s 7A of Rs. 2, 42, 70,538/- having been admitted as the Provident fund Dues, it was obligatory on the part of the Resolution Professional/Resolution Applicant to include the entire payment as per the law laid down by this Tribunal in Jet Airways."

23. We find that facts and circumstances of the case are different as in this

case the amount was not filed formally and therefore not admitted. The

citation, therefore, may not be of any assistance as in the cited case the claim

was admitted basis the orders of the Adjudicating Authority.

24. Appellant has also relied upon the High Court of Patna in M/s Shiva

Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Employees Provident Fund Organization

and Others CWJC No. 16250 of 2025 on the following paras:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 13 of 18 "...

14. Apparently, the petitioner has not complied with its statutory duty to deduct employees share from their salary and to deposit the same in the provident fund. If the petitioner failed to discharge its statutory duties, it cannot be permitted to take the benefits of its own fault.

15. It is true that the assessment is to be made with regard to the identifiable employees only. However, it is the duty of the employer to prepare the list of employees engaged by it and if the employer fails to perform its duty, it cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own laches. Further, since the petitioner failed to produce the relevant records, wage register etc. and took a plea that a fire had taken place in the establishment on 10.10.1998 in which the establishment had been gutted, the respondents cannot be asked to supply the name, address and parentage of the employees engaged in the establishment."

[Emphasis supplied]

25. The EPFO relies on this case, to canvass the argument that the burden

to prove is on the on the Corporate Debtor [employer] for showing the strength

and identity of the employees and not on the Appellant [EPFO]. We do not find

anything which is contrary in the facts and circumstances of the case as the

RP and also the Suspended Director had cooperated with the EPFO in its

inquiry and assessment. But the moot point is that assessment cannot be

done, once the moratorium comes into existence and therefore the cited case

is also of no assistance.

26. The Appellant also relies on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

in Saraswati Construction Co v. Central Board of Trustees W.P.(C) No.

5625/2007 as cited below:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 14 of 18 ".....

11. It is a settled legal position that if any establishment or employer is not covered under the said Act, then it is for the employer to place sufficient cogent and convincing material before the designated authority in an enquiry under Section 7A so as to satisfy the authority with regard to the non-applicability of the Act and on failure to place any such material, the onus cannot be shifted on the EPF authorities to prove the applicability of the Act, who under no circumstances, can be in possession of necessary records evidencing the extent of strength of employees in any particular establishment. In the case of Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation V. Regional PF Commissioner (Supra) cited by the counsel for the petitioner, being distinguishable on facts would not be applicable to the present case. As in the facts of the said case employer itself had admitted its liability under the Act and since due to delay of 16 years period, the employer was not in possession of the records, the Court directed the benefits only with respect to those employees who are identifiable and whose entitlement was proved on evidence. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the petitioner itself never came forward to place on record the documents or took any such plea of non-availability of the documents, therefore, the said judgment of the Apex Court will not cut any ice to help the petitioner in the facts of the present case."

[Emphasis supplied]

27. The above judgement deals with the applicability of Section 7A of the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The

resolution professional has not questioned the inapplicability of the Act,

therefore there is no relevance of the above judgement in the present case.

28. To canvass support the Respondent - RP relies on CA Pankaj Shah vs.

Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. Company Appeal (AT)

Insolvency) No. 17 of 2025, para 10 extracted as below:

"...

10. The above judgment clearly indicates that after initiation of the CIRP, no assessment can be initiated or continued against the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 15 of 18 Corporate Debtor so as to pass any pecuniary liability on the Corporate Debtor. In the present case, the EPFO has made demand on the basis of an alleged inspection report dated 10.05.2023 and assessment order dated 25.09.2023 which both were subsequent to initiation of CIRP on 17.02.2023. When no demand can be made on the basis of any inspection or assessment, we do not find any ground to allow the application IA No.409 of 2024 which was filed by EPFO where direction was sought to allow the entire claim of Rs.1,37,17,837/-."

[Emphasis supplied]

29. This judgment clearly brings out that after initiation of the CIRP, no

assessment can be initiated or continued against the CD so, as to fasten any

pecuniary liability on the CD. This judgement supports the case of the

Respondent No.2 - RP and also helps us to decide the case in hand.

30. Respondent - RP has also relied upon the judgment of this Appellate

Tribunal in Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office,

Vashi, Navi Mumbai Through Regional PF Commissioner-II (Legal) v.

Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani Resolution Professional of M/s. Decent

Laminates Pvt. Ltd CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1062 of 2024 as cited below:

"...

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, subsection (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."

Question No. (3)

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 16 of 18

25. It is an admitted fact that claims were filed by the Appellant subsequent to approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr. - Civil Appeal No.5590 of 2021 decided on 11.09.2023, which judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. More so, when the claim on the basis of assessment, which has been made subsequent to initiation of moratorium, is hit by Section 14, sub-section (1) of the IBC, we are of the view that no such claim can be admitted in the CIRP."

31. In this case, we find that there is no record to suggest that the Provident

Fund was deducted contemporaneously by the CD and as no such record

existed with the CD. An assessment was made later on by the EPFO basis

which a demand has been made and such an assessment is not allowed under

the moratorium existing. We have clearly noted the legal position that when

the claim on the basis of assessment, which has been made subsequent to

initiation of moratorium, is hit by Section 14, sub-section (1) of the IBC, we

are of the view that no such claim can be admitted in the CIRP. Therefore, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Appeal filed by the

Appellant does not merit intervention for setting aside the impugned order

dated 28.03.2025.

32. We uphold the orders of the Adjudicating Authority, which is extracted

as below:

"26. In view of the above discussion, the Resolution Plan submitted by Subhalaxmi Investment Advisory Pvt Ltd as approved by the CoC under Section 30(4) of the Code is hereby authorised for a total Pian Value of Rs. 45,05,000/- Forty Five Lakhs and Five Thousand Rupees) that includes Estimated CIRP Cost of Rs. 20

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 17 of 18 Lakhs, Rs 24.50 Lakhs as Liability towards Secured Financial Creditor, Rs. 50,000/- towards dues of Operational Creditors other than Statutory dues and Rs.5,000/- towards EPFO dues.

The Resolution Plan so approved shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government, or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan.

27. Under the provisions of Section 31(3) of the Code, we also direct as under:

a) The moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the Code on 28.03.2024 shall cease to have effect; and

b) The Applicant/RP shall forward all records relating to the conduct of the CIRP and the Resolution Plan to the Board to be recorded on its database.

28. In view of the foregoing, IA (IB) (Plan) No. 3/CB/2024 is ALLOWED and DISPOSED OF."

33. Accordingly, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. All IAs also disposed of.

No order as to costs.

[Justice N Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) New Delhi.

January 09, 2026.

Pawan

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025 18 of 18