20/09/2023

Damages claim of EPFO pertaining to the period of moratorium cannot be entertained in terms of provision of IBC, 2016 – Bank of India Vs. Vegan Colloids Ltd. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench

In this case, Liquidator has raised objections regarding the continuation of proceedings before the EPFO Authority in view of the moratorium in terms of Section 33(5) of IBC being in force by NCLT Chandigarh Bench order dated 10.10.2018. Ignoring the objections made, the EPFO Authority have ordered levy of damages for belated remittance made during the period 21.01.2016 to 31.03.2020 and Rs.11,18,184/- was directed to be deposited within 15 days under Section 14(b) and in another order under Section 17(q) an amount of Rs.5,71,768/- was demanded.

NCLT Chandigarh Bench referred Section 238 of IBC and held that:
(i) The EPFO Authorities have not filed their claim during the period of CIRP and also during the period of liquidation. The EPFO Authorities has failed to take steps to ensure compliance with the timeline provided under IB Code.
(ii) We do not find any good ground or reason to entertain the claim at this stage of dissolution, as liquidator has already sold asset and distributed it among the stakeholders.
(iii) However, the EPFO Authorities are entitled to pursue their claims, if permitted by law.
(iv) Te claims of EPFO pertaining to the period of moratorium cannot be entertained in terms of provision of IB Code, 2016.

Damages claim of EPFO pertaining to the period of moratorium cannot be entertained in terms of provision of IBC, 2016 – Bank of India Vs. Vegan Colloids Ltd. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »

An application which is barred by time has to be rejected by the Court even if no defence of limitation was raised – Sheetal Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Swastic Sales Corporation Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this Section 7 case, NCLAT held that TDS deduction cannot give any extension to the limitation period. It is well settled that the application which is barred by time has to be rejected by the Court even if no defence of limitation was raised. The Appeal is dismissed.

An application which is barred by time has to be rejected by the Court even if no defence of limitation was raised – Sheetal Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Swastic Sales Corporation Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top