The Regional Pf Commisoner(Ii) Damages ... vs Govind Rubber Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: The Regional PF Commissoner (II) Damages, RO Dadar ...Appellant Versus Govind Rubber Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Varma and Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar and Ms. Akriti Gupta, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

29.10.2024 : I.A. No. 7419/2024

1. This is an Application praying for condonation of 15 days delay in filing

the Appeal.

2. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Counsel appearing

for Respondent No. 1.

3. The ground given in the Application is that after the opinion was sought

from the panel Advocate which was received on 05.09.2024, thereafter,

Regional Office recommended on 06.09.2024 to file an Appeal. The Zonal

Office Delhi assigned the case to the present panel Advocate on 17.09.2024.

Hence, some time was taken in filing the Appeal.

4. Sufficient cause has been shown in Paragraph 2 of the Application for

condonation of delay.

Delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1987/2024

1. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 06.08.2024, passed

by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,

Court Room No. 1, Mumbai Bench) in I.A. 2952/2024. I.A. was filed by

Respondent No. 1 praying for reliefs which has been quoted in Paragraph 2 of

the Order, which are to the following effect:

"a. Declare that the aggregate demand of Rs. 7,29,906/- raised by the Respondent No. 1 against the Applicant towards the said orders is bad in law. b. Be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to provide a no dues certificate to the Applicant.

c. Pending the hearing and disposal of the Application, be pleased to grant ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of Clause (a) and (b)."

2. In the present case, the CIRP commenced on 18.01.2019 and the

Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 31.01.2020.

The Demand Notice was issued by the Appellant to Respondent No. 1 on the

basis of Order dated 09.06.2023 passed under Sections 14B & 7Q of the

Employee Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. The

Application was filed by Respondent No. 1, in the above circumstances to

declare the demand illegal which has been allowed by the Adjudicating

Authority.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that liberty be granted to

the Appellant to take such steps as was granted in the matter of `Employees

Provident Fund Organization' Vs. `Mr. Subodh Kumar Agarwal & Ors.',

in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) 116/2022 by Paragraph 17 of the Judgment.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1987 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7419 of 2024 2 of 4

4. Counsel for the Respondent submits that no liberty needs to be granted

in the facts of the present case and there is no error in the Order of the

Adjudicating Authority.

5. We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the Parties and

perused the record.

6. When the Resolution Plan was already approved on 31.01.2020, we fail

to see that any demand raised by the Appellant on basis of Order 09.06.2023

could be considered in the Resolution Process. The Adjudicating Authority

did not commit any error in declaring the demands as illegal. Insofar as

reliance on Paragraph 17 of the Judgment in `Employees Provident Fund

Organization' (Supra) is concerned in the said Paragraph we have made the

following observations:

"17. The law as it stands today does not require any claim which is not filed to be included in the Resolution Plan. In the present case, the claim which is now crystalized under Section 7A was not there at the time of currency of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, hence, it is not necessary for us to express any concluding opinion as to what steps to be taken by the Appellant for a claim which has been crystalized after close of CIRP process. Appellant are at liberty to take such appropriate remedy for recovery of the amount under Section 7 as may be advised. However, we cannot find any fault due to above ground in the Resolution Plan nor Resolution Plan deserves any interference by this Tribunal on the aforesaid grounds. We, thus, dispose of this appeal with observations and liberty as noted above."

7. The observations made by this Court in the above Order is not granting

any liberty, rather Court has clearly observed that in the facts of the present

case it is not necessary for us to express any conclusive opinion as to what

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1987 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7419 of 2024 3 of 4 steps to be taken by the Appellant. Appellant is assisted by the experts and

it is for the Appellant to take steps as permissible in the law.

With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1987 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7419 of 2024 4 of 4