<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (8) TMI 417 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426178</link>
    <description>During the section 14 moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, proceedings under section 7A of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, and the resulting recovery notices, were treated as barred because they could create pecuniary liability against the corporate debtor. The proceedings were not viewed as merely administrative assessments, but as evidentiary determinations capable of leading to interest, damages, and penalty, and their continuation would undermine the object of preserving the debtor as a going concern and collecting claims within insolvency. The absence of employee-wise particulars also supported the unsustainability of the demands as issued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2022 17:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 417 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426178</link>
      <description>During the section 14 moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, proceedings under section 7A of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, and the resulting recovery notices, were treated as barred because they could create pecuniary liability against the corporate debtor. The proceedings were not viewed as merely administrative assessments, but as evidentiary determinations capable of leading to interest, damages, and penalty, and their continuation would undermine the object of preserving the debtor as a going concern and collecting claims within insolvency. The absence of employee-wise particulars also supported the unsustainability of the demands as issued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>