<?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 879 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHANDIGARH BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426640</link>
    <description>Statutory provident fund dues and recovery action under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 remain enforceable during corporate insolvency resolution, because the insolvency framework cannot be used to defeat liabilities required by applicable law. The Tribunal noted that such dues are not part of the corporate debtor&#039;s distributable assets and that any resolution plan must comply with Section 30(2)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It also indicated that the resolution professional must pursue the remedies available under the provident fund legislation rather than seek blanket protection from lawful recovery. Relief against the lien and recovery proceedings was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:20:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 879 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHANDIGARH BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426640</link>
      <description>Statutory provident fund dues and recovery action under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 remain enforceable during corporate insolvency resolution, because the insolvency framework cannot be used to defeat liabilities required by applicable law. The Tribunal noted that such dues are not part of the corporate debtor&#039;s distributable assets and that any resolution plan must comply with Section 30(2)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It also indicated that the resolution professional must pursue the remedies available under the provident fund legislation rather than seek blanket protection from lawful recovery. Relief against the lien and recovery proceedings was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>