Statutory Authorities Not Exempt From CIRP Timelines: NCLT Mumbai Rejects EPFO's Delayed Claim

The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal refused to condone a 400-day delay by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) in filing its claim in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Sovika Aviation Services Pvt Ltd.

The tribunal held that the statutory authority had failed to provide any convincing explanation for the delay. It observed that permitting the claim after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved the resolution plan would unsettle the insolvency process.

A bench of Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan held that EPFO, despite being a statutory authority, was bound by the timelines prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the CIRP Regulations. The tribunal noted that EPFO filed its application seeking condonation of the 400-day delay only on October 7, 2025, after repeated adjournments and without offering any valid explanation.

Observing that a successful resolution applicant should not be prejudiced by belated claims, the tribunal held,

"The Applicant, being a statutory authority, is also not exempt from complying with the timelines set out in the Code and the CIRP Regulations. Moreover, the Successful Resolution Applicant should be protected against such delayed claims post-approval of the Plan by the CoC. The Applicant/EPFO has not actively monitored the CIRP of the CD in spite of information regarding the first initiation of the insolvency resolution process and submission of their claims in that process, and thereafter."

Sovika Aviation Services entered CIRP on August 30, 2023. September 13, 2023 was fixed as the last date for creditors to submit claims. The Committee of Creditors approved the resolution plan with a 100% voting share on July 22, 2024. The Resolution Professional thereafter moved the tribunal for approval of the plan.

EPFO submitted its claim for about ₹1.43 crore only on October 17, 2024. It attributed the delay to inspections, collection of records and the need to obtain approvals from higher authorities before lodging the claim. The Resolution Professional opposed the request. He contended that the claim had been filed long after the CoC approved the resolution plan and that entertaining it at that stage would disrupt the CIRP.

Rejecting the plea, the tribunal found that EPFO had failed to show any convincing reason for condoning the delay. It also noted that the organisation had not demonstrated any effective steps to recover its dues after the earlier insolvency proceedings against the company ended in October 2021 or before the present CIRP commenced.

Referring to EPFO's conduct during the proceedings, the tribunal observed,

"The Applicant has not produced any document as on date evidencing payment of the cost imposed on them by the Bench. The Plan IA No.79/2024 was heard on 07.10.2025, on which date also, no IA was seen uploaded on the DMS Portal. Finally, it was only on 10.10.2025 that the present INV.P.(IBC) 141 (MB)/2025 & IA No.4709/(MB)/2025 came up for hearing. The chronology of events clearly indicates the lack of keenness of the Applicant in pursuing their claim."

EPFO argued that inspections, collection of records and internal approvals delayed the filing of its claim. The tribunal rejected the explanation. It noted that EPFO had admittedly received information about the CIRP in September 2023 but failed to act within the prescribed timelines.

Holding that EPFO was attempting to shift responsibility for its own inaction, the tribunal observed,

"The Applicant has struggled to explain the reason for the delayed submission of the claim owing to their inspections, inquiries with the CD as well as various approvals and sanctions to be obtained from the higher authorities. After having admitted the receipt of information of the CIRP of the CD on 09.09.2023 and 11.09.2023, the attempt of the Applicant is to put the blame on the Respondent/RP for their own inaction."

Holding that accepting the delayed claim would effectively modify a resolution plan already approved by the CoC, the tribunal dismissed EPFO's intervention petition. It also dismissed the application seeking condonation of the 400-day delay.

For Petitioner/Applicant: Advocate Vinay Kate instructed by Gunjan Choubey

For Respondent: Advocate Manish Jha