Audico Forge Kamgar Sangathana Vs. CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary, RP, Adico Forge Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Hon’ble NCLAT held that there is no dispute that assessment for the interest was done in the year, 2021 much after the liquidation commencement date. The claim under Regulation 12 and 16 of Liquidation Regulation, 2016 had to be filed as on liquidation commencement date. When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Hon’ble NCLAT held that the claims of all the eight EPFO’s are to be treated on par and the entire amount of claim under Section 7A, 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act has to be paid to respective PF authority from the funds available in the attached bank accounts of Corporate Debtor. In case the amount available is not sufficient the same shall be met from disposal of other assets of the Corporate Debtor. Balance left after meeting the claims of the EPFO Authorities shall form part of the liquidation estate.
Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai referring Section 33(5) of IBC and judgment in DBS Bank India Ltd. Vs. Kuldeep Verma, Liquidator of Eastern Gases Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 103 NCLAT, held that the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
In this case, Liquidator submitted that only contribution under Section 7A should have been treated as dues payable to the workers and employees under Section 36(4) of the Code and remaining amount should have been treated as other claims to be dealt in accordance with Section 53 Code.
Hon’ble NCLAT referred the judgment in Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (2017) ibclaw.in 119 SC and held that interest payable by the employee under Section 7Q and the damages levied under Section 14B of the EPF Act will also be covered as dues from the employers for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the EPF Act.
The Hon’ble Bench also referred judgments in Sunil Kumar Jain and Ors. v. Sundaresh Bhatt and Ors. (2022) ibclaw.in 23 SC, Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association (2022) ibclaw.in 861 NCLAT and SBI v. Moser Baer Karamchari Union (2020) ibclaw.in 206 NCLAT and dismissed the appeal holding that the contention of the Liquidator is not tenable and stand rejected.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to