Moratorium bars post-freeze assessment claims in insolvency, and an undertaking cannot revive an unenforceable provident fund liability.

Commencement of moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code creates a statutory freeze on proceedings against the corporate debtor, and that bar extends to assessment proceedings that create or determine liability. A provident fund claim founded on an assessment prepared after the moratorium was therefore unenforceable and could not be admitted in the corporate insolvency resolution process. An undertaking by the successful resolution applicant to pay such a claim could not override the statutory prohibition or validate an otherwise barred liability. The direction treating the disputed provident fund amounts as payable under the resolution plan was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether assessment proceedings under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 could be continued after commencement of moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether a claim based on such post-moratorium assessment could be admitted in the corporate insolvency resolution process. (ii) Whether an undertaking given by the successful resolution applicant to pay the provident fund claim could validate an otherwise unenforceable claim or bind the parties to payment.

Issue (i): Whether assessment proceedings under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 could be continued after commencement of moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether a claim based on such post-moratorium assessment could be admitted in the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: The moratorium under Section 14(1) creates a statutory freeze on proceedings against the corporate debtor. The expression "proceedings" is not confined to civil suits and extends to assessment proceedings which may affect the assets and liabilities of the corporate debtor. A claim founded on an assessment initiated or completed during the moratorium period is barred, because the very basis of liability is created in violation of the insolvency freeze. The provident fund demand in question rested on an assessment report prepared after commencement of the moratorium, and therefore the claim could not be treated as enforceable in the resolution process.

Conclusion: The claim based on post-moratorium assessment was not admissible, and the direction approving payment of the provident fund dues on that basis could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether an undertaking given by the successful resolution applicant to pay the provident fund claim could validate an otherwise unenforceable claim or bind the parties to payment.

Analysis: An undertaking cannot override a statutory prohibition. If the underlying claim is hit by the moratorium and is unenforceable in law, an affidavit or undertaking to pay that claim does not cure the defect. A contractual or volunteered promise that conflicts with the statutory freeze is itself incapable of enforcement. The resolution applicant's affidavit therefore could not be used to sustain payment of the disputed provident fund amounts.

Conclusion: The undertaking was unenforceable and could not validate payment of the claim.

Final Conclusion: The appeal filed by the successful resolution applicant succeeded, the provident fund organisation's appeal failed, and the direction treating the disputed provident fund amounts as payable under the resolution plan was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Once moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 commences, assessment proceedings creating liability against the corporate debtor cannot continue, and any claim founded on such prohibited assessment is unenforceable in the insolvency process; a contrary undertaking cannot revive it.

---