TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking relief as follows; (a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside the order of communication of the first respondent dated 29.06.2020 rejecting the revised claim amount of the Applicant for Rs. 28,43,387/-; (b) This Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay off the revised claim amount of Rs. 28,43,387/- of the Applicant on first priority from and out of the liquidation assets/estate of the Respondents; (c) This Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents for payment of costs thereof. 2. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of the Corporate Debtor viz. M/s. R.L. Logis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period 11/2017 to 04/2018 for Rs. 17,899/ (iv) Penal Damages and Interest under section 14B & 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act 1952 has been levied for the period 12/2014 to 10/2017 for Rs. 3,17,298/-. (v) Penal Damages and Interest under section 14B & 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act 1952 has been levied for the period 08/2014 to 02/2017 for Rs. 4,02,488/-. 3. The Liquidator vide its email dated 29.06.2020 has rejected the above said claim filed by the Applicant on the following grounds; a) On verifying your revised claims, you have failed to explain the points as mentioned in my earlier mail and also the above mentioned points. b) The Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for necessary orders in this regard. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter. 4. Aggrieved by the afore extracted email dated 29.06.2020, the Applicant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 42 of IBC, 2016 before this Tribunal on 09.09.2020. 5. Heard the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties. It is seen that the Applicant has filed its revised supplementary claim before the Liquidator on 24.02.2020 for a sum of Rs. 28,43,387/- which came to be rejected by the Liquidator on the ground that the order passed by the EPF Authority under Section 7A of the EPF Act, 1952 was violative and beyond jurisdiction. In this context, it is reiterated that in so far as the dues of the Provident Funds are concerne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffect on the same in terms Section 238 of the Code, it was held that no provisions of EPF & MP Act, 1952 and IBC, 2016 are in conflict and on the other hand in terms of Section 36(4)(iii), the provident fund and gratuity funds are not the assets of the corporate debtor, there being specific provisions, the application of Section 238 of the Code will not arise. In the circumstances, the successful resolution applicant was directed to release full provident fund and interest thereof in terms of EPF & MP Act, 1952 and the appeal of PF authorities was thereby allowed. 7. Further, also the Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner; (2009) 10 SCC 123 has held in para 66 to 69 as f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... down that any amount due from the employer whether in respect of the employees' contribution deducted from the wages of the employee or the employer's contribution shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the establishment, and shall be paid in priority to all other debts. 67. The expression "any amount due from an employer" appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 11 has to be interpreted keeping in view the object of the Act and other provisions contained therein including sub-section (1) of Section 11 and Sections 7A, 7Q, 14B and 15(2) which provide for determination of the dues payable by the employer, liability of the employer to pay interest in case the payment of the amount due is delayed and also pay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the ambit of expression "any amount due from an employer". every employer will conveniently refrain from paving contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11(2). Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellant-bank that the amount of interest payable under Section 70 and damages leviable under Section 14B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section....