Employees Provident Fund Organization vs Mr. Divan Asparan Nabir & Ors

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 338 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1277 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Amritsar ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Divan Asparan Nabir Resolution Professional of ...Respondent(s) Shiva Shakti Grains (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Mrinal Sharma, Varshika Singh, Snehpreet Kaur, Hemant Dalal, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Viren Sharma, Yash Srivastava, R1/RP

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 09.04.2026: I.A. No. 1277 of 2026: This is an application praying for

condonation of delay of 13 days in filing of the appeal.

2. The Appeal has been filed by Employees Provident Fund Organisation.

In para 2 ('ii' and 'iii') of the application sufficient cause has been shown for

condonation of delay. Delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 338 of 2026

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.11.2025 passed

by the NCLT, Chandigarh by which I.A No. 526 of 2025 filed by the Appellant

seeking direction to admit the claim has been rejected.

2. The Adjudicating Authority has passed the following order in I.A No.

526 of 2025 which read as under:-

"This is an application filed by EPFO seeking directions to the respondents to adjudicate, admit and release the dues of the applicant for an amount of Rs. 1,42,16,709/-It is seen that on the last order dated 09.10.2025, the Learned Counsel for the RP relied on the NCLAT decision in Pankaj Shah vs. EPFO dated 03.09.2025.

It is further seen that Mr. Gaurav Tangri, learned counsel for the EPFO had sought time to file counter-judgment against the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT and today, he attends and confirmed that no counter judgment could be found. It is seen that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT in Pankaj Shah (supra), wherein the Hon'ble NCLAT held that claims raised under Section 7A, 14 B & 7Q under the EP & MP Act, 1952 demanding an amount of damages and interest, during moratorium imposed by virtue of Section 14 of the IBC are inadmissible. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

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, subsection (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."

Hence, in view of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble NCLAT in the above mentioned case, the present IA No. 526/2025 stands dismissed."

3. The Adjudicating Authority has taken the view that issues are fully

covered by judgment of this Tribunal in Pankaj Shah vs. EPFO dated

03.09.2025.

4. No error has been committed in rejecting the application filed by the

Appellant. The appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu