NCLT Kolkata Rejects EPFO's ₹8.23 Crore Additional PF Claim In Corporate Power Liquidation

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Kolkata has dismissed the Employees Provident Fund Organisation's plea to admit an additional ₹88.23 crore claim towards provident fund damages and interest in the liquidation of Corporate Power Limited(CPL).

A bench of Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Siddharth Mishra held that the additional EPFO claim, which arose from an assessment completed after the commencement of liquidation, could not be admitted in the process.

“Since the claim was finalized in 2023 whereas the liquidation begun in 2021, permitting claims arising from post-liquidation assessment would reopen settled liabilities and hinder the completion of the liquidation process in a time bound and definitive manner. Therefore, any liability arising through assessment of damages and interest under Section 7Q and 14B of the EPF & MP Act after the liquidation commencement date can not be accepted.”

The EPFO had sought admission of an additional claim of ₹8.23 crore against the corporate debtor's liquidator towards damages and interest for delayed remittance of provident fund contributions.

Liquidation of CPL began on September 8, 2021. The EPFO quantified the additional dues in October 2023, and the assessment order was passed in September 2024. The liquidator rejected the claim on the ground that the liability had not crystallised when liquidation commenced.

The EPFO argued that provident fund dues are statutory social welfare liabilities that enjoy priority protection and remain outside the liquidation estate. It also contended that assessment proceedings could continue during liquidation and that damages and interest arise automatically once contributions are delayed.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application, noting the social welfare character of provident fund dues, but rejected the substantive relief.

It held that while assessment proceedings may continue during liquidation, the additional EPFO claim based on liabilities quantified after the liquidation commencement date could not be admitted, as doing so would reopen settled liabilities and disrupt the time-bound liquidation framework.

For Applicant (Provident Fund Authority): Advocate S. C. Prasad; Advocate Arijit Tewary; Advocate Suparna Mallick.

For Respondent (Liquidator): Senior Advocate Manju Bhuteria; Advocate Kriti Talreja; Advocate Abhishek Swaroop; Advocate Anupam Prakash.