Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Prashant Jain Resolution Professional ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 937 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ...Appellant Versus Prashant Jain Resolution Professional of Dimond Power Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Varma, Advocate For Respondents: Mr. Mandeep Singh, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Advocates for R-2 Mr. Udit Gupta, Advocate for R-1

ORDER

20.04.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.06.2022 by which

order the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan of the

Corporate Debtor, 'M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd'.

2. The Appellant had filed the claim before the Resolution Professional

belatedly which was not admitted, however, under orders passed by Adjudicating

Authority, Resolution Professional admitted their claim u/s 7A of the Employees'

Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 ("EPF Act") for an amount of Rs.

2,42,70,538/-.

3. The grievance in this appeal raised by the Counsel for the Appellant is that

although the aforesaid claim was directed to be admitted but in the Resolution

Plan, the Appellant has been proposed only Rs. 5 lakhs.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 937 of 2022 1

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in view of the judgement

of this Tribunal in Jet Airways, (Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare

Association Vs. Ashish Chhaochhaia, RP of Jet Airways (India)(2022) SCC

Online NCLAT 418), the Resolution Plan was required to include the entire

payment of EPFO Provident Fund dues as was admitted in the plan.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that during the pendency of

the application for approval of the Plan certain more dues has been crystallized

which may also be directed to be paid.

6. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Applicant submits that in so far as

the claim which has been crystallized subsequently, they being not part of the

Resolution Plan nor admitted in the proceedings, there is no occasion to consider

the said amount in the Resolution Plan.

7. We have considered submission of the Learned Counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

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.

9. We, thus, are of the view that it is in the interest of justice, that directions

be issued to Resolution Applicant to make the entire payment after deducting

the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs if already paid to save the plan from infirmity. In so

far as any other dues, which were not part of the Resolution process, no Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 937 of 2022 2 directions can be issued as prayed by the Appellant, subject to direction as

above, we upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the

Resolution Plan.

10. The aforesaid amount and Provident Fund dues shall be paid as per the

Resolution Plan.

11. Learned Counsel for the RP submitted that even this, the amount of Rs.

2,42,70,538/- could not have been accepted since this was crystallized during

the CIRP process. In so far as submission of the Resolution Applicant that

amount of Rs. 2,42,70,538/- also could not be accepted, we are of the view that

the said amount was admitted in the process and there was no challenge to

admission of the said claim, hence, this argument cannot be accepted.

The Appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

ss/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 937 of 2022 3