Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench Court-IV
Order Date: 07.07.2026
Case Overview
The Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) filed an intervention petition (INV. P. No. (IBC)/141/(MB)/2025) and an application for condonation of 400 days delay (IA No.4709/(MB)/2025) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Sovika Aviation Services Private Limited. The EPFO sought direction against the Resolution Professional to admit statutory dues of ₹1,42,77,489/- under Sections 7A, 7Q and 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the period from April 1996 to December 2019.
The corporate debtor was admitted into CIRP on 30.08.2023 following an application by Air India Limited (Financial Creditor). Mr. Ashok Kumar Golechha was appointed as Resolution Professional on 06.02.2024. The public announcement was made on 04.09.2023 with last date for claim submission as 13.09.2023. The Committee of Creditors approved the resolution plan with 100% voting share on 22.07.2024, and the plan approval application (IA (Plan)/79/2024) was filed before NCLT on 06.08.2024.
EPFO submitted its claim only on 17.10.2024 - 400 days after the deadline. The RP rejected the claim citing belated submission after CoC approval. EPFO argued that the delay was due to internal processes, approvals from higher authorities, and non-availability of records from the CD/RP. They contended that provident fund dues have first charge on assets under Section 11 of EPF Act and cited various judicial precedents including Jet Airways and Rainbow Papers cases.
The Resolution Professional opposed the petition, arguing that allowing such delayed claims would defeat the time-bound nature of IBC and disrupt the concluded resolution process. He emphasized that the CoC had already exercised its commercial wisdom in approving the plan without EPFO's claim.
Final Outcome
The NCLT Mumbai Bench dismissed both the intervention petition and the condonation application. The tribunal held that EPFO failed to provide sufficient reason for the 400-day delay, noting they had received intimation about the CIRP as early as September 2023 but took no action. The court emphasized that statutory claims must adhere to IBC timelines and cannot disrupt concluded processes. The tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar which prohibits entertaining claims after resolution plan approval. The order affirms the finality of the CoC-approved resolution plan and rejects EPFO's attempt to intervene at this advanced stage.
Topics: Insolvency Proceedings, Regulatory Compliance, EPF Dues