Whether Regulation 12 limitation bars a statutory provident fund claim: Supreme Court precedent (Rainbow Papers) treats Regulation 12 as directory for statutory dues, so delay alone cannot justify rejection - claim survives. Whether EPF/gratuity constitute assets of the corporate debtor under Section 36(4)(iii): prior tribunal authority held EPF/gratuity are not assets of the corporate debtor, so they cannot be treated as estate assets - claim stands. Whether reopened claims may be barred after CoC approval: Supreme Court jurisprudence cautions against reopening plans to avoid endless CIRP, but that principle does not override the Rainbow Papers ruling; impugned rejection on limitation is quashed and matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the application on merits (except as to limitation) - NCLAT
Whether Regulation 12 limitation bars a statutory provident fund claim: Supreme Court precedent (Rainbow Papers) treats Regulation 12 as directory for statutory dues, so delay alone cannot justify rejection - claim survives. Whether EPF/gratuity constitute assets of the corporate debtor under Section 36(4)(iii): prior tribunal authority held EPF/gratuity are not assets of the corporate debtor, so they cannot be treated as estate assets - claim stands. Whether reopened claims may be barred after CoC approval: Supreme Court jurisprudence cautions against reopening plans to avoid endless CIRP, but that principle does not override the Rainbow Papers ruling; impugned rejection on limitation is quashed and matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the application on merits (except as to limitation) - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
