53 (1) (e) (i)

A penalty imposed by SEBI during the liquidation can be claimed before Liquidator and can be considered for the purpose of distribution of assets under Section 53 of IBC? – Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Mr. Vishal Ghisulal Jain, Liquidator of, Sterling International Enterprises Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT Mumbai Bench referred the judgment in Sundaresh Bhatt (2022) ibclaw.in 103 SC and held that:
(i) IRP, RP or Liquidator as the case may be, has an obligation to ensure that the assessment of statutory dues like taxes, fine, penalty etc. is legally completed. Natural corollary to this is, if determination of the statutory dues is allowed during liquidation period then filing of the claim arising out of such determination cannot be barred under IBC otherwise it would amount to empty formality.
(ii) The only restriction the belated claimant has to face is that it cannot disturb the amount already distributed as per waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC.
(iii) Any creditor who files belated claim has to suffer the consequences that it is entitled to receive the amount only from the left over assets of Corporate Debtor and has no right to disturb the distribution already made.
(iv) The dues arising out of Adjudication Order passed on 17.02.2022 by SEBI which is admittedly after liquidation commencement date i.e. 18.10.2021, can be claimed before Liquidator.

A penalty imposed by SEBI during the liquidation can be claimed before Liquidator and can be considered for the purpose of distribution of assets under Section 53 of IBC? – Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Mr. Vishal Ghisulal Jain, Liquidator of, Sterling International Enterprises Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

The dues of workmen/employees from Provident Fund do not come within the meaning of ‘Liquidation Estate’ for the purpose of distribution of assets u/s 53 of IBC and the damages levied by EPFO u/s 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 which are dues of Government and will be paid in order of priority u/s 53 of IBC, 2016 – Shri Addanki Haresh Liquidator of Right Engineers and Equipments India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.  Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

In this important judgment on treatment of claim/demand and penalty raised by EPFO, NCLT Bengaluru Bench held that:
(i) The demand/claim raised prior to the moratorium will not form part of liquidation estate and should be paid in priority; secondly, the claim/demand and penalty raised during moratorium period is not allowable under the provisions of the IBC; and the penal damages claimed under Section14B of EPF & MP Act, 1952 which is prior to the moratorium period will be treated under Section 53 of IBC, 2016.
(ii) The dues of workmen or employees from the provident fund do not come within the meaning of ‘liquidation estate’ for the purpose of distribution of assets under Section 53 of the Code. Accordingly, it is to be paid in priority over other dues.
(iii) The damages levied by EPFO under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act 1952 which are dues of Government and will be paid in order of priority under Section 53 of IBC, 2016.

The dues of workmen/employees from Provident Fund do not come within the meaning of ‘Liquidation Estate’ for the purpose of distribution of assets u/s 53 of IBC and the damages levied by EPFO u/s 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 which are dues of Government and will be paid in order of priority u/s 53 of IBC, 2016 – Shri Addanki Haresh Liquidator of Right Engineers and Equipments India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.  Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top