Employees Provident Fund Organization vs Spss Infrastructure Private Limited & ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 546 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal will not interfere with an order approving a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where the appellant has identified no error in that order showing a violation of Section 30(2) of the Code. Where a claim has already been rejected by the Tribunal in a separate appeal, that determination forecloses a challenge to the plan approval on the basis of the same claim, absent any independent error in the plan-approval order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 546 of 2026 & I.A. No. 2105 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Amritsar ...Appellant(s)
Versus
SPSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Mrinal Sharma, Varshika Singh, Snehpreet Kaur, Hemant Dalal, Adv. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 09.04.2026: I.A. No. 2105 of 2026: This is an application praying for
condonation of delay of 12 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. 546 of 2026
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated
16.01.2026 passed in IA (IBC) (Plan) No.15 of 2024. The Adjudicating
Authority has approved the resolution plan by the impugned order.
2. The Appellant has also filed an application i.e. I.A No. 526 of 2025
seeking direction to accept the claim which was rejected against which CA
(AT) (Ins) No. 338 of 2026 filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by our
order of date.
3. When the application for accepting the claim has already been rejected
and affirmed by this Tribunal, we do not find any ground at the instance of the Appellant to interfere with the order approving the resolution plan dated
16.01.2026. It is not the case that any error has been pointed out in the order
by which it can be proved that there is violation of Section 30(2) of the IBC.
4. We thus do not find any ground to interfere with the 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