Employees Provident Fund Organization vs Ms. Chhaya Gupta Liquidator Of M/S ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 166 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay condonation application is decided on the appellant's showing that the delay was procedural and that the appeal was filed within the period the law permits, so the Tribunal finds sufficient cause and condones the delay. On the merits, a claim which arises only after the liquidation commencement date cannot be entertained by the liquidator under the statutory scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, so the adjudicating authority is right to reject a claim founded on assessments and demands made after liquidation commenced. A judgment of the Supreme Court arising under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, concerning a cooperative bank and not considering the IBC or the Liquidation Regulations, 2016, is not an authority on the question of whether post-commencement claims may be admitted in liquidation under those Regulations.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Employees' Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, Indore ...Appellant Versus Chhaya Gupta, Liquidator of Rajpal Autolink Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Braja Bandhu Pradhan, Advocate.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
10.02.2026 : I.A. No. 616/2026
1. This is an application praying for condonation of 15 days delay in filing
of the appeal.
2. In paragraphs 3 & 4, the appellant has given following reasons for
condonation of delay:
"3. That after receiving the order dated 13.11.2025 the appellant/EPFO immediately forwarded the panel counsel to file appeal before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal.
4. That thereafter getting the order, the Appellant immediately filed the present appeal on the basis of order dated 13.11.2025 therefore as per calculation from the date of receiving the copy of the order it has delayed for 15 days and the Hon'ble appellate Tribunal is competent to condone the delay in as much as the entire period of delay was within the limit as prescribe under the law."
3. The appellant is Employees Provident Fund Organisation, for filing the
appeal which requires consultation at several stages.
4. We find sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay.
Delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 166/2026
1. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 13.11.2023 passed
by the adjudicating authority in I.A. No. 346/MP/2024.
2. Appellant has filed an I.A. against the liquidator praying for accepting
the claim of Rs.46,873/- along with the interest. The application was filed by
letter dated 03.05.2024. The adjudicating authority has rejected the
application taking the view that the claim which was filed by the appellant
was based on subsequent assessments. Application was filed on 18.07.2024
pertaining to EPF dues, which was after filing of dissolution application on
10.08.2023. Adjudicating authority in paragraph 9 has given sequence of the
event. Liquidation commencement order was 23.04.2021 and orders for
assessment was passed all subsequently. Adjudicating authority thus relying
on the earlier judgment of this Tribunal has held that the claim cannot be
entertained. It is useful to notice paragraphs 9 to 11 of the order, which are
as follows:
"9. It is observed that the Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor commenced on 23.04.2021. However, the assessment order under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 was passed on 22.12.2023, and the consequential orders under Sections 7Q and 14B of the said Act were issued thereafter, all subsequent to the
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 166 of 2026 & I.A. No. 616 of 2026 2 of 4 commencement of the liquidation proceedings. The relevant details are placed in the tabular form below:
Date Subject matter
23.04.2021 NCLT Ahmadabad Bench passed the Liquidation order in IA No. 7 of 2021.
22.12.2023 Order passed under Section 7A of EPF & MP Act, 1952 for the period of 10/2019 to 04/2021.
15.01.2024 Order passed under Section 14B and demand made under Section 7Q of EPF & MP Act, 1952 for the period of 04/2018 to 11/2023.
19.02.2024 Order passed under Section 14B and demand made under Section 7Q of EPF & MP Act, 1952 for the period of 12/2023 to 01/2024.
20.02.2024 Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) issued.
26.02.2024 Claims of PF dues were filed with the Liquidator.
10. Recently, on 29.08.2025, the NCLAT, Principal Bench (New Delhi) in The Regional P.F. Commissioner, EPFO Vs. Alok Kailash Saksena Liquidator of Gujarat Foils Ltd. and Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 2025) held that only claims in existence as on the liquidation commencement date and filed within the prescribed period are entertainable.
11. Further, the Hon'ble NCLAT Principal Bench, in Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Nashik vs. Girish Siriram Juneja & Anr., in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 693 of 2025 and I.A. No. 2676 of 2025, made certain observations which are relevant and applicable to the present case. The relevant portions of the said order passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT are reproduced below:
6. Any claim which arises after liquidation commencement date cannot be entertained by the Liquidator as per the statutory scheme under Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 166 of 2026 & I.A. No. 616 of 2026 3 of 4 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. Claim under 70 and 14B arose only on 23.10.2023 i.e. subsequent to liquidation commencement date.
The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in not accepting the said claim. We, thus, do not find any ground Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.693 of 2025 to interfere in the order rejecting claim filed by the Appellant. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Jalgaon District Central Corp.
Bank Ltd.' Vs. 'State of Maharashtra & Ors.' in [Civil Appeal No. ..... of
2025 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.27740/2011] decided on 20.11.2025
submits that delay in filing the claim by the employees was condoned. When
we look into the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said judgment
arose out of proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002, where the provisions
applicable to 'Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.' has been referred
to. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not considering the
provisions of the IBC, Liquidation Regulation, 2016 and the said judgment
was on different statute and does not come to any aid to the appellant in the
present case.
We do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority.
Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 166 of 2026 & I.A. No. 616 of 2026 4 of 4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free