Regional Provident Fund Commssioner vs Atul Kumar Kansal

IN THE MATTER OF: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ...Appellant Versus Atul Kumar Kansal, RP, Universal Buildwell Pvt Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Vaibhav Mendirata, Mr. Sajal Jain and Mr. Atul Kansal (RP in person), Advocates for RP.

Mr. Harshal Kumar, Advocate for R-2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

07.08.2025 : Heard counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel

appearing for the RP and learned counsel for the SRA.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the adjudicating

authority dated 07.03.2025 by which resolution plan of the corporate debtor

- M/s. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. has been approved. This appeal has been

filed by Regional Provident Fund Commission challenging the order approving

the resolution plan.

3. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate

debtor commenced on 03.07.2018, the IRP sent information to the appellant for submitting a claim. The claim was filed on 18.07.2019 which was not

admitted by the RP.

4. An I.A. was filed by the Department being I.A. No.1810/2023 seeking a

direction to admit the claim to the extent of Rs.54,56,26,369/-. The

adjudicating authority heard the I.A. and disposed of the same directing RP

to examine the claim with reference to the books of the corporate debtor and

the application was disposed of.

5. The RP in reference to the claim and in reference to the order passed by

the adjudicating authority on 23.05.2023 issued an email to the appellant on

25.07.2023 informing that the claim of the appellant is admitted to the extent

of Rs.18,76,448/-. The said communication by RP remain unchallenged as

per the order. The RP has communicated about the admitted claim to the

SRA and SRA has expressed his agreement to make the payment of the

admitted claim.

6. The resolution plan of the corporate debtor was approved by the

Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 08.09.2021 and the application filed for

approval of the plan i.e., I.A. 5003/2021 was considered and allowed by the

adjudicating authority by the impugned order approving the resolution plan.

7. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the order

approving the resolution plan.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although no steps were

taken by the appellant after the communication dated 25.07.2023 informing

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 774 of 2025 2 of 7 only partial admission of the claim of Rs.18,76,448/- but RP has no

jurisdiction to reject the claim which was submitted by the appellant for

amount of Rs.54 crore and odd. It is submitted that the PF dues are dues

which have to be kept out of liquidation estate as per Section 36 of the IBC,

hence the entire claim was required to be admitted in the CIRP.

9. Learned counsel for the RP opposing the submission of the appellant

submits that in present case, CIRP commenced on 03.07.2018 and the basis

of the claim filed by the appellant was an order passed subsequently on

06.07.2019 during moratorium period hence the said claim was not

considered and on basis of the books of the account of the corporate debtor,

claim of Rs.18,76,448/- was admitted. It is submitted by learned counsel for

the RP that in pursuance of the order of the adjudicating authority, the claim

was admitted which was communicated to the appellant but the said was

never challenged by the appellant before the adjudicating authority or any

other forum nor the earlier order passed on 23.05.2023 was challenged hence

no ground has been made out to interfere with the approval of the resolution

plan.

10. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

11. From the facts brought on the record, it does appear that an application

was filed by appellant when the claim was not admitted as claimed by them

in the CIRP for admission of claim of Rs.54,56,26,369/- by I.A. 1810/2023

which was disposed of by the adjudicating authority vide its order passed on

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 774 of 2025 3 of 7 23.05.2023. Order passed by adjudicating authority on 23.05.2023 is to the

following effect:

"IA-1810/2023: The salient plea espoused by the Applicant in the IA is that the RP failed to examine the claim of the Applicant on merits per contra, Ld. Counsel appearing for the RP submitted that the claim is concocted and is not genuine. According to him during the moratorium, the EPFO could not have made its own assessment to stake the claim to the extent of Rs 54,56,26,369/-. In his submissions, the RP can admit the claim only with reference to the books of accounts of the CD.

It is not the case of either of the parties that the claim raised in the captioned application has been examined. When the argument put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant is that the claim could be nixed with the view that no assessment could be made during the moratorium, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the RP submitted that no specific details of the employees qua which the EPF contribution amount could not be remitted with the EPFO has been given. Apparently, the claim of EPFO has not been examined on merits and in a transparent manner. In the wake, the application is disposed of with a direction to RP to examine the claim of the Applicant with reference to the books of the CD and make a fair order in this regard. The claim of the EPFO would be examined by the RP, with due deference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Bhupinder Singh versus Unitech Limited (Civil Appeal No 10856/2016) order dated 20.01.2020, in terms of which the moratorium would not foreclose the statutory entitlement of the EPFO to enforce the claims for payment of EPF and other related statutory dues against the erstwhile management.

It goes without saying that if the claim of the Applicant is found tenable to any extent, the RP would convene the meeting of CoC for appropriate step qua the resolution plan. If the amount, if any, found payable by the RP limited to such an extent that it can be dealt with by the provisions already made in the plan then RP may not call a CoC meeting and the RP may take decision in consultation with SRA.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 774 of 2025 4 of 7 With this, the present IA stands disposed of."

12. After the order of the adjudicating authority, RP again considered the

claim submitted by the appellant and communicated on 25.07.2023 that the

claim is admitted to the extent of amount of Rs.18,76,448/-. Form the

additional affidavit filed by the appellant dated 30.07.2025, it is not disputed

that the communication dated 25.07.2023 of the RP was never questioned.

The submission of the appellant is that RP has no jurisdiction to reject the

claim which was submitted by the appellant.

13. We are not persuaded to accept the submission of the appellant, when

under the CIRP Regulations, RP is entitled to collate and verify the claim any

claim submitted by any creditor is required consideration and verification and

only then it is admitted. In the present case after verification, the claim of

only Rs.18 lakh and odd was admitted on the basis of book of account of the

corporate debtor hence the submission of the appellant that RP had no

jurisdiction to reject the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted.

14. Furthermore, the RP has given reasons for not accepting the claim, that

the said is based on an order passed on 06.07.2019 that is during moratorium

period and the claim which is admitted is on the basis of the books of the

account of the corporate debtor.

15. The appellant having not agitated his partial admission of the claim any

further, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the

adjudicating authority approving the resolution plan of the corporate debtor.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 774 of 2025 5 of 7

16. Learned counsel for the RP submits that as far as the admitted claim,

SRA has agreed to make the full payment. Counsel for the SRA has also

submitted that entire claim admitted by RP in the CIRP shall be paid.

17. We also do not find any substance in the submission of the appellant

that as per Section 36 of the IBC, the entire claim which was submitted by

the appellant was required to be admitted in the CIRP Process. The claim of

the appellant submitted was verified and only partial claim was admitted, at

this stage, submission cannot be accepted that the entire claim was required

to be admitted when issue was not agitated any further.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that assessment

which was made during moratorium by the Department was not challenged

by the RP in any proceeding and it is further submitted that RP had no

jurisdiction to ignore the assessment order passed by the appellant and

further the appellant is not the operational creditor. With regard to above

submission, it is sufficient to notice that insofar as the assessment made

during moratorium RP has only refused to accept the claim on the said basis,

there was no question of any pronouncement on the validity of the order at

the level of the RP. RP has not accepted the claim based on the said and that

cannot be said to be challenging the order by the RP.

19. As far as the appellant's case is that they are not operational creditor

in facts of the present case what entire admitted claim is being paid by the

SRA, we see no reason to express any opinion on the said submission.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 774 of 2025 6 of 7

20. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the

order of the adjudicating authority.

The appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 774 of 2025 7 of 7