Employees Provident Fund Organization vs Shri Vikram Kumar & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 385 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A creditor's claim filed after the Committee of Creditors has approved the resolution plan may be rejected by the Resolution Professional as untimely, and an appellate challenge to such rejection fails where the claim was not filed within the period prescribed in the public announcement and no error is found in the Adjudicating Authority's reasoning.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 385 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1347, 1484 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
Employees Provident Fund Organisation ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Vikram Kumar Resolution Professional of Dr. Jain ...Respondent(s) Video On Wheels Ltd. & Anr. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Mrinal Sharma, Varshika Singh, Snehpreet Kaur, Hemant Dalal, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Karan Kohli, Palak Kalra, Adv. for RP ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 09.04.2026: I.A. No. 1484 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 of the application sufficient cause has been shown for condonation
of delay. Delay condoned.
I.A. No. 1347 of 2026: This is an application praying for condonation of delay
of 33 days in refiling of the appeal. In the application, sufficient cause has
been shown for condonation of delay in refiling of the appeal. Refiling delay
condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 385 of 2026
1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.11.2025 passed
by the NCLT, New Delhi in I.A No. 224 of 2024 by which order the Adjudicating
Authority has rejected the application filed by the Appellant seeking a
direction to release the fund and the Resolution Professional to accept the
claim.
2. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties has taken the view
that the commencement of CIRP was on 03.06.2021, claim form was
submitted on 21.11.2023 and on the said ground the claim was rejected.
3. We have considered the submissions of the Appellant and perused the
record.
4. In para 'IV' the Adjudicating Authority has made the following
observations :-
"iv. On the other hand, the Respondent/Resolution Professional has submitted that the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor commenced on 03.06.2021 and that the public announcement was duly issued inviting claims from all stakeholders, with the last date for submission being 22.06.2021. The Applicant admittedly did not file any claim within the prescribed period or even during the pendency of the CIRP. The record shows that the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant, SPSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., was approved by the Committee of Creditors in its 21st meeting held on 06.09.2023, and the e-voting concluded on 10.10.2023. The Applicant's claim in Form-F was filed only on 21.11.2023, i.e., after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, and therefore could not be considered by the Resolution Professional."
5. The claim having been filed after the CoC has approved the resolution
plan. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in not accepting
the claim of the Appellant.
6. We do not find any error in the impugned order. The appeal is
dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu
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