9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 656 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyDissolution of Corporate Debtor company - applicability of Section 53 of the IBC on EPF - HELD THAT - From the records, it is seen that the Appellants though made their claims during CIRP, however, the claims have not been notarized as per the procedure. However, prima facie, the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor being nil, the Liquidator may not be able to pool the funds, distribute the same(sum) in pursuance of Section 53 of the I B Code 2016. The main contention of the Appellant is that Section 53 of the IBC is not applicable in the case of EPF. Since the Employees Provident Fund Act is a special Act and prevails over all other acts and submits that the dues which are payable to the employees cannot be treated as part of the asset of the Corporate Debtor. In view of the nil value and keeping in view of the dissolution of the company there being no other source to pay to the Employees Provident Fund, being a Government Agency, since the Corporate Debtor was dissolved, the company is no more in existence in the eye of law - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant, a statutory organization, has locus standi to file the appeal. 2. Whether the liquidation process followed by the liquidator was in compliance with the relevant laws. 3. Whether the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) dues should be treated as part of the liquidation estate. 4. Whether the appellant's claim for EPF dues should have been prioritized over other claims. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of the Appellant: The respondent argued that the appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal since the Corporate Debtor had already been dissolved by the adjudicating authority's order. The appellant was not an aggrieved person as defined under Section 61 of the IBC 2016. The appellant did not participate in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) or liquidation proceedings, and their claim was rejected on technical grounds for not being notarized. 2. Compliance with Liquidation Process: The appellant submitted claims during the CIRP and liquidation process, but these claims were not acknowledged due to technical defects. The liquidator followed due process, issuing public announcements and requesting notarized claims. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) recommended liquidation due to the nil value of the Corporate Debtor's assets. The adjudicating authority ordered liquidation on 05.09.2019, and the liquidator finalized the list of claims and stakeholders as per regulation 31 of the Liquidation Process Regulation. 3. Treatment of EPF Dues in Liquidation Estate: The appellant argued that EPF dues are outside the liquidation estate as per Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the IBC 2016, which states that sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund, pension fund, and gratuity fund are not included in the liquidation assets. The tribunal agreed with this position, citing that EPF dues are not part of the Corporate Debtor's assets and should not be used for recovery in liquidation. 4. Priority of EPF Dues: The appellant contended that EPF dues should have been prioritized over other claims, referencing Section 11 of the EPF Act and the decision in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -I Ahmedabad Vs Ramachandra D. Choudhary. The tribunal acknowledged that EPF dues are not part of the liquidation estate and should be paid in priority. However, in this case, the Corporate Debtor had nil value, and there were no assets or receivables to distribute. Findings: The tribunal concluded that due to the nil value of the Corporate Debtor and its dissolution, there were no assets to pay the EPF dues. The company being dissolved means it no longer exists in the eyes of the law, making it impossible to pass any directions against a non-existent entity. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no orders as to cost.
|
