SRA could not be saddled with any claim that was not part of Resolution Plan: NCLAT Dismisses Appeal of EPFO [Read Order]

In a recent case, the New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the appeal of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), holding that the Successful Resolution Applicant(SRA) could not be saddled with any claim that was not part of the Resolution Plan.

Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), the applicant prayed for condonation of appeal of 14 days in filing the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the certified copy of the order was applied on 20.03.2025 and it was ready on 25.03.2025. It is submitted that 6 days’ time need to be excluded, hence, delay is only 8 days. It is submitted that the Appellant is EPFO organisation and appeal was to be filed at Delhi.

Since the tribunal found sufficient cause for condonation of delay, condoned the same. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 18.03.2025 allowing the application which was filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 05.04.2021.

EPFO passed an order under Section 7A on 16.09.2021 and thereafter, an order under Section 8F was passed on 28.10.2021. In the CIRP, the CoC approved the resolution plan on 29.12.2021. The Recovery Certificate was issued for recovery of EPFO dues on 05.04.2022. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 13.07.2024. The Resolution Applicant, who was declared as Successful Resolution Applicant filed I.A. No.1044/ND/2024 questioning the Recovery Certificate dated 05.04.2022, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submitted that notices were issued in the proceeding under Section 7A to the Resolution.

Professional but the Resolution Professional did not respond to the notices. Further, the dues that were assessed on 16.09.2021 were dues prior to the CIRP period. He submitted that the Appellant was not aware of the CIRP commencement; hence, no claim could be filed.

The CIRP commenced on 05.04.2021, and moratorium was imposed. After the moratorium was imposed it was not open for the Appellant to issue the Recovery Certificate dated 05.04.2022 on the basis of assessment order passed during moratorium. Further, no claim was filed in the CIRP by the Appellant. The Resolution Applicant, who took the Corporate Debtor as Successful Resolution Applicant could not be saddled with any claim which was not part of the Resolution Plan, which is the law declared by the Supreme Court in “Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors. (2021)”.

In absence of any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority partly allowing the application filed by the Successful Resolution

Applicant and the bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson and Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) observed by the Adjudicating Authority that the Applicant is at liberty to approach the forum against the Recovery Certificate dated 05.04.2022. The appeal is dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates