TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IA(IBC)/24 /2025, in IA(IBC)/407/2023 in CP (IB)/77 /9/AMR/2021, by virtue of which the claim preferred by EPFO, Respondent-1 herein was allowed. In Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 21/2026, the Appellant challenges the order of Ld. NCLT dated 20.08.2025, that was passed, in IA(IBC)/272/2025, that was preferred in IA(IBC)/24/2025 in IA(IBC)/407/2023, in CP(IB) No. 77/9/AMR/2021, whereby the application filed by the Appellant / SRA seeking recall of the order passed by Ld. NCLT on 13.06.2025 in IA/24/2025 was rejected. The facts which engage consideration in both the appeals are common. Hence, they are required to be commonly read for both the company appeals. 2. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Corporate Debtor was initiated with filing of the application under Section 9 of I&B Code by M/s. Pattabhi Enterprises. The said application was admitted by Ld. NCLT by the order dated 26.10.2022 and CIRP was commenced in respect of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional, who was appointed by an order dated 14.12.2022 to conduct the CIRP, took the necessary steps such as issue of public notice, invitation of claims and collation of the same and constituti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led an application being IA (IBC)/24/2025 on 05.01.2025, in IA(IBC)/407/2023 by invoking Section 42 of the Code, in which it prayed for condonation of delay in filing the said application and for issue of a direction to the RP to admit its claim of Rs. 92,86,949/- on the ground that it was a statutory due and that as per the provisions of section 36(4)(a)(iii) the said claim represents 3rd party asset in the possession of the CD. Ld. NCLT, after hearing the parties, passed the order dated 13.06.2025 in IA (IBC) 24 / 2025, admitting the full claim of Rs. 92,86,949/- and directing the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to pay the same to EPFO on the grounds that as per the ratio laid down by NCLAT in Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association v. RP of Jet Airways, in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 752 of 2021, the SRA is required to pay the claim in full to EPFO, with liberty to approach the Central Board of Trustees only for waiver of the damages levelled under Section 14B of the EPF Act. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted below: "11. Accordingly, the SRA is directed to pay the outstanding provident fund dues amounting to Rs. 92,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order on the following grounds: - I. The Appellant was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings. II. The order was passed without issuance of notice to him. III. The order was passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. 9. We find that these grounds exclusively taken in the recall application can be answered at this juncture itself, by reproducing the extracts of the finding recorded in the order of 13.06.2025 passed in IA(IBC)/24/2025 itself. The said order observes in paragraph-5 as under: "5. The Counsel appearing for the SRA submitted that after approval of the Resolution Plan, the SRA is not liable to the dues pertaining to the pre-CIRP period." 10. This confirms that the Appellant was participating in the proceedings and therefore, he would be deemed to have knowledge and also there would be a strong presumption that he was heard too. Besides that, recording in para-7 confirms that arguments were also extended by the Appellant, which is extracted hereunder: "Based on the pleadings of the parties and arguments made by the counsel of EPFO, RP and SRA, we note the following chronology of events and facts:" 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 13.06.2025 as passed in IA (IBC) 24/2025, under Section 42 of the Code, has filed the company appeal before the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal on 24.11.2025, on which the Registry has reported that, the appeal has been filed by 87 days of delay. But the Appellant has filed an IA No. 55/2026 seeking condonation of 14 days of delay only in filing the appeal, on the plea that the recall application was filed within limitation on 31.07.2025, that it was heard and disposed of on 20.08.2025, that the order of dismissal was uploaded on NCLT website on 25.08.2025, that since the order was passed in gross violation of natural justice, he had approached Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing a Writ Petition No. 30061 of 2025 on 17.09.2025 which was within the period of limitation and after it was decided on 03.11.2025, he had filed the subsequent appeal on 24.11.2025 which is again within 30 days of the passing of the order by Hon'ble High Court, and therefore the period spent in litigation in recall application proceedings and in the proceedings before the High Court, should be excluded from the computation of limitation period in the light of the provisions contained under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time limit to file recall against an order is 30 days. 17. The recourse to file the recall application, should not have been resorted to by the Appellant in a manner to override the effect of limitation under the I&B Code, by filing at first, a recall application at a belated stage and upon its dismissal, filing the Writ Petition and thereafter, filing the Company Appeal with a plea to condone the delay under the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 18. The Appellant has also preferred an appeal as against the impugned order of 20.08.2025, i.e., against the rejection of his recall application, being IA (IBC) 272/2025, which is accompanied with a delay condonation application being IA No. 53/2026, seeking condonation of 12 days of delay in filing the appeal. However, as far as this application is concerned, taking a pragmatic view, owing to the grounds taken, particularly in context of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 03.11.2025, the delay of 12 days would stand condoned and we have to proceed to hear the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 21/2026, as against the order of rejection of the recall, on its own merits. 19. The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot subsequently, after passing of order against him, at an appellate stage, take a plea that he was not made a party to the IA, and that he was not heard. X. Representing a cause and being heard in a cause itself will amount to that the proceedings is in the knowledge of the Appellant, and that would itself suffice the purpose of effective service of notice, even if he has not been made a party to the application and once he addresses the application itself on merits, without seeking a liberty or raising an objection of not being made as a party, he cannot seek a recall of an order on the grounds of being not made a party in the application. XI. Thus, the rejection of the recall application for the above reason is absolutely tenable in the eyes of law, and the pleas taken cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and that has been rightly rejected by the impugned order of 20.08.2025 as passed in IA (IBC) 272/2025 preferred by the Appellant in IA (IBC) 24 / 2025 in IA (IBC)/407/2023 in CP(IB) No. 77/9/AMR/2021, which is subject matter of consideration in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 21/2026. Hence this Company Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly 'dismissed'. ....