Unfiled provident fund claim in insolvency need not be built into the resolution plan; approved plan remains valid.

Provident fund dues arising from a pending Section 7A proceeding were not required to be included in the resolution plan where no claim had been filed in the corporate insolvency resolution process. The insolvency framework requires the resolution professional to receive and collate submitted claims, and a liability not crystallised through a filed claim does not form part of the plan. Although the regulations contemplate disclosure of material litigation and ongoing proceedings in the information memorandum, the omission to treat an unfiled statutory inquiry as an admitted claim did not invalidate the approved resolution plan. The plan was sustained and the appellant was left to pursue any other available recovery remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether provident fund dues arising from an ongoing Section 7A proceeding, where no claim was filed in the corporate insolvency resolution process, were required to be included in the resolution plan. (ii) Whether the resolution professional had a duty to reflect the pending statutory proceeding and possible liability in the information memorandum and list of claims.

Issue (i): Whether provident fund dues arising from an ongoing Section 7A proceeding, where no claim was filed in the corporate insolvency resolution process, were required to be included in the resolution plan.

Analysis: The claim had not been submitted in the corporate insolvency resolution process, although the resolution professional and the corporate debtor had notice of the pending statutory inquiry. The statutory framework under the insolvency law requires the resolution professional to receive and collate claims that are submitted, and the resolution plan is framed on the basis of the claims placed before the process. A liability that had not crystallised in the process by reason of a filed claim was therefore not required to be incorporated in the resolution plan.

Conclusion: The resolution plan was not liable to be interfered with on this ground, and the appeal failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the resolution professional had a duty to reflect the pending statutory proceeding and possible liability in the information memorandum and list of claims.

Analysis: The relevant regulations require collation of submitted claims and preparation of the information memorandum, including material litigation, ongoing proceedings, and liabilities, but the scheme does not expressly oblige the resolution professional to treat every pending statutory inquiry as an admitted claim or to include an unfiled claim in the resolution plan. The Bench observed that the present framework leaves a gap in relation to liabilities reflected in ongoing statutory proceedings, but that gap did not justify setting aside the approved resolution plan. The Bench also clarified that provident fund obligations are statutory liabilities of the corporate debtor, but the omission to include an unfiled claim did not invalidate the plan in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: No fault was found in the resolution professional's conduct sufficient to upset the approved resolution plan, though the Bench indicated a need for regulatory attention.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, the approved resolution plan was sustained, and the appellant was left at liberty to pursue such other remedy as may be available for recovery of the amount after the insolvency process.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim not submitted in the corporate insolvency resolution process is not required to be included in the resolution plan, and the omission to reflect an unfiled pending statutory proceeding does not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise approved resolution plan.

---