Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs Rajat Minerals (NCLAT Delhi)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), reinforcing that a successful resolution applicant cannot be made liable for claims that were not part of the approved resolution plan. The appeal was filed against an order by the Adjudicating Authority, which had allowed the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) of Rajat Minerals to question a recovery certificate issued by the EPFO.
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for the corporate debtor began on April 5, 2021, and a moratorium was imposed. Although the EPFO passed an order for the assessment of dues during this period, it failed to file its claim with the Resolution Professional within the stipulated time. The Committee of Creditors approved the resolution plan on December 29, 2021, and it was subsequently approved by the Adjudicating Authority on July 13, 2024.
The NCLAT, after considering the submissions, noted that the EPFO’s recovery certificate was issued after the moratorium began and that no claim had been filed during the CIRP. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors., which established that a successful resolution applicant cannot be saddled with any claim that was not a part of the final resolution plan. The NCLAT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority’s decision to allow the SRA’s application and dismissed the EPFO’s appeal, holding that substantial justice had been done.
