AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Oral: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
In this Company Appeal on the Appellant herein, i.e., Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, have challenged the impugned order dated 06.06.2025, that was rendered in IA(IBC)/1896/CHE/2024, which was preferred in CP (IB)/62/(CHE)/2023, by virtue of the impugned order, after observing that by its order dated 07.03.2025, EPFO was asked to pay CIRP dues within 4 weeks and that the same has not been complied with which amounts to wilful disobedience of the order of the Tribunal, the Learned Tribunal has directed EPFO/Appellant to make the payment of CIRP dues within a week and file compliance memo, failing which, the contempt proceeding would be drawn against the Appellant.
If the said order, which is under challenge is taken into consideration, the observation that was made in the impugned order while deciding IA No. 1896/CHE/2024, is only an opinion that was expressed regarding intiating of a contempt proceedings in the event of noncompliance of the order within the time period as prescribed therein.
For the purposes to better appreciate the inference, that is being attempted to be drawn from the impugned order by the Appellant, it becomes relevant for us to consider the order dated 07.03.2025 itself, which has been passed by the Learned Tribunal. The Learned Tribunal while passing the order of 07.03.2025 in IA (IBC)/1896/CHE/2024, had observed as under:
Further we also find that amount has been pending for payment since August 2024 and we do not find any sufficient cause or reasons on the part of the Respondent in not paying the CIRP dues as per law. Respondent is directed to make the payment within 4 weeks and file compliance memo failing which serious view will be taken for non-payment of CIRP dues.
The consequences, which could be summarised from the above extracted part of the order dated 07.03.2025 were that, the Learned Tribunal had determined that, it does not find any reason for exempting the Appellant from paying its share of the CIRP dues as per law, and therefore it directed the Appellant to pay the said amount within 4 weeks and file a compliance memo.
The impugned order, which has been put under challenge, is simpliciter an order, which aims to ensure compliance of the said order/directions that has been given in the order of 07.03.2025. Consequentially the order of 06.06.2025, does not have any independent existence in itself; it only seeks to enforce compliance of its earlier order that, was passed on 07.03.2025. Admittedly, the order of 07.03.2025, has not been put to challenge by the Appellant in any proceedings and in that eventuality, the directions that has been given by the Learned Tribunal for remitting the amount towards the CIRP cost stands determined by the order passed of 07.03.2025. As a result, since the order dated 07.03.2025, continues to exist in the eyes of law without being challenged or being set aside by a superior court or a forum, the directions given therein are mandatorily required to be complied by the Appellant.
Since the order of 07.03.2025, has not been challenged and has not been complied with, passing of the impugned order to enforce compliance of the directions to pay the CIRP dues under the threat of drawing of contempt proceeding in the event of non-compliance is a natural consequence and cannot be faulted. Accordingly, in the instant Company Appeal, we don't see any logic to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.06.2025, because the said direction has been issued only because of non-compliance of the order dated 07.03.2025 and because, the impugned order only contemplates taking of an action for drawing a contempt proceedings and it has not reached the stage of drawing of a contempt or passing of an order of punishment under contempt of Courts Act.
Hence, it could be said that, there is no cause of action as such as of now for the Appellant, to put challenge to the impugned order of 06.06.2025, and more importantly, when the Appellant itself has not challenged the order of 07.03.2025, in which the actual determination was made with respect to fixing of the Appellant's liability to pay the CIRP cost.
Accordingly, the Company Appeal is dismissed, with the rider that, dismissal of this Company Appeal would be without prejudice to the rights of the Appellant to resort to any appropriate recourse available to them under law, as against the order of 07.03.2025, where the liability of paying the CIRP cost has been fastened upon the Appellant. All Interlocutory Applications would stand closed.