Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 04 NCLAT CK 1933

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Thane vs Devang Sampat Liquidator Of General Composites Pvt. Ltd.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 23 April 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Mr. Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 254 of 2026 & I.A. No. 880, 932 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 1,387 words

(Hybrid Mode)

I.A No. 932 of 2026: This is an application praying for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal. The Appellant is EPFO, Thane. Sufficient ground has been mentioned in para 2(ii) of the application for explaining the delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal. The delay is within the condonable period and we find sufficient cause given in the application for condonation of delay. Delay condoned. I.A No. 880 of 2026: This is an application praying for condonation of delay of 58 days in refiling of the appeal. We find sufficient cause shown in the refiling delay application. Refiling delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 254 of 2026

1.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in CA No. 3 of 2025 filed by the Appellant questioning the decision of the Liquidator not accepting the claim of the Appellant.

2.

Liquidation of the CD commenced on 05.03.2024. The Appellant after expiry of period given for filing the claim filed the claim with delay for an amount of Rs. 6,11,575/- under Section 7A, 7Q and 14B of the Code.

3.

The liquidator did not accept the claim, hence, CA No. 3 of 2025 was filed which came to be heard and rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the appeal held that amount claimed has arisen from the orders dated 08.03.2024, 24.07.2024 and 14.08.2024 i.e after liquidation commencement date. In para 10 and 11 the Adjudicating Authority made following observations :-

“10.

Nonetheless, on merits also, the amount claimed has arisen from an order(s) dated 08.03.2024, 24.07.2024 and 14.08.2024. In the present case the Liquidation commenced on 05.03.2024, accordingly these claims were not in existence on the date of liquidation commencement date.

11.

It was also held in case of Regional P.F. Commissioner EPFO v. Alok Kailash Saksena (Liquidator) and Anr., (2025)

ibclaw.in 689 NCLAT that "11. There can be no dispute to the proposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. The above case, however, considered the winding up proceeding and entitlement of payments of employees of Provident Funds, Gratuity Funds and Pension Funds. The present is a case where the claim filed by the Appellant in liquidation proceeding has not been admitted. We have noted Regulation 16(2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 which clearly provides that claim can be filed as on the liquidation commencement date. According to the own case of the Appellant, the claim was filed on the basis of assessment order passed on 11.10.2021 and 20.10.2021. Thus, the said claim was not in existence on the liquidation commencement date. Counsel for the liquidator has rightly placed reliance on judgment of this Tribunal in "Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Nashik vs. Girish Siriram Juneja & Anr.- Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.693 of 2025 & IA No.2676 of 2025" which was also a case where application filed by the EPFO before the Adjudicating Authority for accepting the claim was rejected. In the above case, a revised claim was filed on the basis of an order passed under Section 70 and Section 14B dated 23.10.2023 which claim was subsequent to the liquidation commencement date. This Tribunal in its judgment dated 30.06.2025 upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the application of the Appellant. This Tribunal in the above case has noted that the claim which was filed on the basis of Section 7A order was admitted in liquidation and subsequent claim which was filed on the basis of order dated 23.10.2023 was not admitted since liquidation has commenced by order dated 28.04.2023. It is useful to notice paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment which is as follows:-"5. There is no dispute to the proposition that claim under 7Q and 14B arises after 7A is determined. In the present case, claim under 7A was filed within the time on 28.04.2023, which was admitted. Subsequently, claim under 70 and 14B arose out of two orders dated 23.10.2023, which claims were subsequent to the liquidation commencement date. In paragraph 9 of the order the Adjudicating Authority has noticed the above fact, which is as follows:

"9.

These communications clearly evidence that the revised claim of the Applicant EPFO was rejected on 02.01.2024 in clear terms as being inadmissible on account of it having been filed beyond the last date for filing of the claim; the original claim of the Applicant was admitted; and the revised claim is arising from two orders passed on 23.10.2023 which is after the liquidation commencement date. The Applicant had a remedy in the form of Appeal in terms of Section 42 of the Code specifically providing for an Appeal within 14 days of the receipt of the decision of the Liquidator rejecting or admitting the claim of the Creditor. Undisputedly, this remedy was not availed by the Liquidator herein. Since there is a specific provision providing for appeal, this Tribunal cannot have jurisdiction in terms of Section 60(5) of the Code. Nonetheless it is trite law that the claims of the Creditor in existence as on the liquidation commencement date are only admissible and such claims has to be filed within the time period allowed by the Liquidator in terms of public announcement made after commencement of the Liquidation or such period as is extended thereafter. In the present case even, the revised claim has not been filed within the time prescribed by the Liquidator for filing of claim."

6.

Any claim which arises after liquidation commencement date cannot be entertained by the Liquidator as per the statutory scheme under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. Claim under 70 and 14B arose only on 23.10.2023 i.e. subsequent to liquidation commencement date. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in not accepting the said claim. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere in the order rejecting claim filed by the Appellant. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed."”

4.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that although assessment cannot be proceeded during the moratorium but in the liquidation proceedings assessment can be proceeded. Be that as it may, the claim which are admissible in the liquidation proceedings are the claim as existing on the liquidation commencement date. Any claim which has arisen subsequently cannot be dealt with in the liquidation proceedings.

5.

We are thus of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in rejecting the appeal. We further observe that it shall be open for the Appellant to take such remedy in law as permissible after the liquidation proceedings are over.

6.

With these observations as noted above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

I.A No. 1007 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 277 of 2026: This is an application praying for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal. The Appellant is EPFO, Vashi. Sufficient ground has been mentioned in para 2(ii) of the application for explaining the delay of 14 days in filing of the appeal. The delay is within the condonable period and we find sufficient cause given in the application for condonation of delay. Delay condoned.

I.A No. 893 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 277 of 2026: This is an application praying for condonation of delay of 63 in refiling of the appeal. We find sufficient cause shown in the refiling delay application. Refiling delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 277 of 2026

1.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2025 passed in I.A (IBC) No. 2008 of 2025. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application which was filed by the appellant for accepting the claim under Section 7A, 7Q and 14B. The said claim had been filed in the liquidation proceedings after the liquidation commencement date i.e 19.06.2024.

2.

The Adjudicating Authority has observed that claim arose out of orders passed subsequent to 19.06.2024, hence, cannot be adjudicated.

3.

The issues raised in the present appeal is fully covered by our decision in appeal CA (AT) (Ins) No. 254 of 2026. Following the reasoning and judgment in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 254 of 2026 this appeal is also dismissed. No costs.