NCLAT Rejects EPFO Claim In Dhruv Wellness CIRP, Finds Internal Communication Without PF Assessment Insufficient

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) seeking admission of a Rs. 61.36 lakh claim in the CIRP of Dhruv Wellness Ltd., holding that a claim based only on an internal communication and without any assessment under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act could not be sustained.

The tribunal further observed that the appellant must bear the consequence of not crystallising the claim at the relevant stage.

The bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “Facts on record clearly indicated that no assessment was taken place under 7A at the relevant time. We are of the view that even if submission of the Appellant is correct that no assessment was passed on 02.05.2025 and it was only an internal communication, that cannot be basis of for filing a claim in the CIRP. Assessment having not been made at the relevant time, the Appellant has to blame itself for not crystalising the amount with regard to any assessment."

The present appeal was filed by the EPFO against the order of the NCLT Mumbai Bench, which had rejected its application seeking admission of the claim.

The adjudicating authority had noted that the corporate debtor was admitted into CIRP on February 18, 2025, and that an assessment of provident fund dues under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act was stated to have been made on May 2, 2025. It held that such an assessment could not be undertaken after the commencement of CIRP.

Before the NCLAT, EPFO contended that no assessment order had in fact been passed on May 2, 2025, and that the document relied upon by the adjudicating authority was merely an internal communication issued by an Enforcement Officer to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.

The NCLAT examined the document and observed that it was a report of the Enforcement Officer containing calculations relating to salary and wages for the period 2017 to 2023.

On the facts on record, the tribunal held that no assessment under Section 7A had taken place at the relevant time and reiterated that such internal communication could not form the basis of a claim in CIRP.

Dismissing the appeal, the tribunal held that no ground had been made out to interfere with the impugned order.