DOLPHIN OFFSHORE ENTERPRISES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA THR MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND ORS

                                                         WP-6845-2023.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 6845 OF 2023

M/s Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Limited,
1001, Raheja Centre,
214, Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400021

Also At,
701/702, Lakhani Centrium,
Plot No. 27 Sector 15,
CBD Belapur (East),
Navi Mumbai – 400614                                ...Petitioner
        Versus
1. Union of India
   Through, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
   Govt. of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan Rafi Marg,
   New Delhi-110001                                 ...Respondent No.1

2. Employee’s Provident Fund Organization
   Tower No. 6, 5th Floor,
   Vashi Railway Station Complex,
   Vashi, New Mumbai - 400703
   Regional P.F. Commissioner II
                                                    ...Respondent No.2
3. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal
   Erstwhile Resolution Professional
   Having registration no.
   IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00890/2019-2020/12843
   Address: Unit no 1507, 15th Floor,
   B Wing, ONE BKC Plot No. C-66, G-Block,
   BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051              ...Respondent No.3

                             ——————
Mr. Shadab Jan a/w Ms. Geeta Lundwani, Ms. Anjali Yadav, i/by Mr. Amey
Hadwale, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Gunjan Chaubey, for the Respondent No.2.
                              ——————


SQ Pathan                      1 of 20
                                                               WP-6845-2023.doc




                  CORAM                   :   SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J.
                  RESERVED ON             :   JULY 24, 2026.
                  PRONOUNCED ON :             SEPTEMBER 01, 2026.

JUDGMENT :

1.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent and taken up for

final disposal.

2.     By this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,

the challenge is to the order dated 24 th February 2023 passed by the

Respondent No.2-Employees' Provident Fund Organization under

Section 7A of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions

Act, 1952 (for short, “Provident Fund Act”).

3.     Briefly stated, the facts as set out in the Petition are that a

petition was filed on 22nd October, 2018, under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (`IBC’) by one of the creditors against

the Petitioner company, which came to be admitted by the National

Company Law Tribunal and, vide order dated 16 th July 2020, the

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) was initiated. Under

the provisions of IBC, the Interim Resolution Professional was

appointed and a public announcement was made inviting claims from all

creditors on 22nd July 2020. In response to the public announcement,

the Respondent No.2, on 7th May 2021, submitted its claim of



SQ Pathan                       2 of 20
                                                          WP-6845-2023.doc


Rs.2,24,98,772/-. The claim was verified and admitted by the Resolution

Professional in full. After issuance of Form G and scrutiny of the

resolution plans received from the interested parties, the Committee of

Creditors, in its CoC meeting held on 7 th February 2022, approved the

final resolution plan submitted by one M/s. Deep Industries Limited. The

resolution plan came to be approved by the National Company Law

Tribunal (‘NCLT’) by its order passed on 29th September 2022. In terms

thereof, the management of the corporate debtor was transferred to

the Resolution Applicant. In accordance with the approved resolution

plan, the Respondent No.2 was paid an amount of Rs. 2,250/- in full and

final settlement of the claim.

4.     Prior to the initiation of CIRP, the Respondent No.2 had initiated

an inquiry under Section 7A of the Provident Fund Act for remittances

of the Provident Fund contributions for the period from April 2018 to

September 2019. The summons was issued on 24 th October 2019. Even

during the CIRP, the inquiry under Section 7A continued despite

intimation by the IRP and RP about initiation of CIRP and imposition of

moratorium vide letters dated 8th October, 2020, 11th December, 2020

and 27th April, 2021. After approval of the resolution plan, the

Resolution Professional by letter dated 4th January, 2023 informed the

Respondent No.2 about the same and that the Respondent’s claim

stood settled at Rs.2,250/ in terms of the Resolution Plan, which


SQ Pathan                        3 of 20
                                                          WP-6845-2023.doc


amount was paid to the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No. 2 issued

the impugned order dated 24 th February 2023 assessing the provident

fund dues at Rs.1,22,48,716/- and directing the corporate debtor, to

make the payment. Hence, the present petition.

5.       Mr. Jan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would

submit that the corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated in

July 2020, in which the claim of Respondent No.2 came to be verified

and admitted. He submits that the resolution plan was approved by

NCLT on 29th September 2022, and thereafter the impugned order was

passed on 24th February 2023. He submits that it is a settled position in

law that once the resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating

authority under Section 31(1) of IBC, the claims as provided in the

resolution plan, stand frozen and are binding on the corporate debtor

and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central

Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors,

and other stakeholders, drawing support from the decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd.,

through the Authorized Signatory vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction

Co. Ltd., through the Director & Ors. 1. He submits that no proceedings

in respect of dues for the period prior to the date of approval of

resolution plan by the adjudicating authority can be continued. He
1    Civil Appeal No.8129/2019




SQ Pathan                        4 of 20
                                                        WP-6845-2023.doc


would further submit that the proceedings have been continued by the

Respondent No.2 through the period of moratorium imposed under

Section 14 of IBC, and hence the assessment based on the inquiry held

during the moratorium period is non est. He would further submit that

in the case of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization vs. Subhlaxmi

Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the decision of the

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in the case of Dalmia Cement

(Bharat) Limited vs. The Central Board of Trustees, Employees

Provident Fund Organization2, decided on 29th April 2025, was

distinguished on the ground that in that case, the Resolution

Professional had not taken note of the claim of the Provident Fund

Organization. He submits that in the present case, an identical factual

scenario exists, inasmuch as, the Respondent No.2 had lodged its claim

with the Resolution Professional and a treatment has been given in the

resolution plan. He submits that the Respondent No.2 did not challenge

the resolution plan and, having accepted the same, could not have

continued with the inquiry under Section 7A of the Provident Fund Act

and assessed the dues.

6.      He would further submit that Sub Section (6) to Section 31 came

to be introduced on 26th May, 2026, which renders the impugned

Section 7A inquiry without jurisdiction. He submits that the amendment

2    MANU/MH/2645/2025


SQ Pathan                       5 of 20
                                                              WP-6845-2023.doc


has retrospective effect and by reason of the amendment, the

precedential value of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs. The Central

Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization, has been

diluted. He submits that Section 7A proceedings were continued during

the moratorium and culminated into the impugned order which was

passed after the approval of resolution plan. He submits that the

continuation of the assessment proceedings is in teeth of Section 31(6)

of IBC which prohibits continuation of proceedings in respect of pre-

resolution approval claims. He submits that the impugned order

proposes recovery under Sections 8B-8G, damages under Section 14B,

interest under Section 7A and prosecution under Section 14 in respect

of alleged default for the period April, 2018 to September, 2019 which

is pre-CIRP conduct by the erstwhile management and not the

Resolution Applicant. He submits that under Section 32A of IBC, the

new management is immune from prosecution or liability for past

offences once the Resolution Plan is approved. In support, he relies

upon the following decisions :

            (i)   Shiv Charan & Ors. vs. Adjudicating Authority & Anr.3;

            (ii) Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd., through the
            Authorized Signatory vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
            Co. Ltd., through the Director & Ors.4


3   (OS) WPL/9943/2023 dated 01/03/2024
4   Civil Appeal No.8129/2019 dated 13/04/2021


SQ Pathan                                  6 of 20
                                                                        WP-6845-2023.doc


            (iii)   Employees’       Provident        Fund      Organization   vs.
            Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani5

            (iv)    Employees’       Provident        Fund      Organization   vs.
            Subhlaxmi Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.6


7.       Per contra, Mr. Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent No.2 submits that though a claim was lodged for sum of

Rs.2,24,98,772/- only a meagre claim of about Rs.2,250/- has been

allowed. He submits that under the provisions of Section 18 of IBC, the

Explanation excludes the assets owned by the third party in possession

of the corporate debtor held under trust. He submits that under Section

36 of IBC, the assets owned by the third party, including all sums due to

any workman or employee from the provident fund, the pension fund

and the gratuity fund, are excluded from the liquidation estate assets

and are not to be used for recovery in the liquidation. He submits that

the said provisions were considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of

this Court, Nagpur Bench, in the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat)

Limited (supra), and that the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the

provident fund dues of an employee do not fall within the meaning of

operational debt as defined in Section 5(21) of IBC and, therefore,

would not be a claim to be included in the resolution plan, non-inclusion


5    Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1062/2024 dated 03/01/2025
6    2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 26




SQ Pathan                                  7 of 20
                                                           WP-6845-2023.doc


of which would result in the liability being wiped out in terms of what

has been held in the decision of Ghanashyam Mishra (supra). He

submits that once it is held that the provident fund contribution is not

an asset of the corporate debtor and does not constitute a debt, the

decision of Ghanashyam Mishra (supra) would not apply to wipe out

the assessment of the provident fund contribution. He would further

submit that the assessment of the dues under Section 7A of the

Provident Fund Act was for a period from April 2018 to September 2019

i.e. even prior to the corporate insolvency resolution process.

8.     Rival contentions now fall for determination:

9.     The facts are undisputed. The impugned order is assailed on three

grounds firstly that the inquiry under Section 7A continued during the

moratorium period and hence are non est, secondly that the treatment

was given to the claim lodged by Respondent No.2 in the resolution plan

and upon approval of the resolution plan, the claims stands frozen and

thirdly, extinguishment of claim by reason of Section 31(6) of IBC. The

first issue requiring consideration is whether after the imposition of

moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, the Respondent No.2 could have

continued with the inquiry under Section 7A of Provident Fund Act.

10.    The CIRP was initiated on 16th July 2020, in respect of Petitioner

Company. The initiation of CIRP triggers the provisions of Section 14 of

IBC imposing moratorium and prohibiting the continuation of pending


SQ Pathan                        8 of 20
                                                           WP-6845-2023.doc


suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, which moratorium

has the effect of statutory freeze limited till the date that the

adjudicating authority either allows the resolution plan or the Corporate

Debtor goes in liquidation. Once the moratorium has been imposed by

Section 14 of IBC, no proceedings can continue which has the effect of

creating new liabilities on the Corporate Debtor. (See Rajendra K

Bhutta vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development And Anr 2020

13 SCC 208).

11.    In the inquiry under Section 7A of Provident Fund Act, the

summons was issued on 24th October, 2019 calling upon the erstwhile

management of Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.2 on

19th November, 2019. Subsequently, on 16th July, 2020,          CIRP was

initiated resulting in imposition of moratorium. The impugned order

records that on 8th October 2020, the Respondent No.2 received

communication from the IRP stating that the CIRP has been initiated

against the Petitioner by virtue of order of Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench

on 16th July, 2020. Despite thereof, the Respondent No.2 called for the

necessary documents from IRP on 19th October 2020 and 4th December

2020. The Respondent No.2 was          apprised of the appointment of

resolution professional and the required documents were submitted

along with letter dated 27th April 2021 in the hearing held on 27 th April,

2021. The impugned order further records that the Area Enforcement


SQ Pathan                        9 of 20
                                                          WP-6845-2023.doc


Officer filed her deposition on 12 th May, 2021. The impugned order also

observes that as per the approved resolution plan, an amount of

Rs.2,250/- was sent by the RP vide letter dated 10th January, 2023.

12.    The Respondent No.2 was therefore aware of the initiation of the

CIRP as well as the approval of the Resolution Plan in which the

Respondent No.2’s claim was approved for sum of Rs.2,250/-. Despite

the imposition of moratorium, the Respondent No.2 proceeded with the

Section 7A inquiry and after the approval of the resolution plan, the

impugned order came to be passed on 24th February, 2023.

13.    In the case of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization vs.

Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani (supra) the NCLAT dealt with an identical

issue as to whether the assessment proceedings can be carried on by

the EPFO after imposition of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC.

Noting the statutory provisions and the judicial pronouncements, the

NCLAT opined in paragraph 24 that after initiation of moratorium under

Section 14 sub Section (1) no assessment proceedings can be continued

by the EPFO. If after an order of liquidation is passed, Section 33, sub-

section (5) does not prohibit initiation or continuation of assessment

proceedings. The view of NCLAT in Employees’ Provident Fund

Organization vs. Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani (supra) was thereafter

followed by the NCLAT in the case of Employees’ Provident Fund



SQ Pathan                       10 of 20
                                                                    WP-6845-2023.doc


Organization vs. Subhlaxmi Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

(supra).

14.     Though not cited at the bar, in the affidavit-in-reply of the

Respondent No.2, a reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of S.V. Kondaskar Vs. V.M. Deshpande7 where

the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the provisions of Section 446 of

the Companies Act, 1956 in context of assessment proceedings under

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions of Section 446

of the Companies Act is similar to Section 14 of the IBC and prohibits

the commencement or continuation of suit or other legal proceedings,

once a winding up order has been made or the official liquidator has

been appointed as provisional liquidator except by leave of the Court.

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the authorities can initiate

assessment or re-assessment proceedings, however, cannot enforce a

claim for recovery during the period of moratorium.

15.         The decision in the case of S.V. Kondaskar Vs. V.M. Deshpande

(supra) was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sundresh Bhatt,

Luquidator of ABG Shipyard Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs8 and it was held in Paragraphs 46, 53 and 54 as under :

        “46. There is another aspect of this case that needs to be highlighted
        to portray the inconsistency of the Customs Act vis-à-vis the IBC during

7   AIR (1972) SC 878
8   (2023) 1 SCC 472


SQ Pathan                            11 of 20
                                                                    WP-6845-2023.doc


        the moratorium period. In the present case, the demand notice dated
        11.07.2019 was issued by the Respondent Under Section 72 of the
        Customs Act, in clear breach of the moratorium imposed Under Section
        33(5) of the IBC. Issuing a notice Under Section 72 of the Customs Act
        for nonpayment of customs duty falls squarely within the ambit of
        initiating legal proceedings against a Corporate Debtor. Even under the
        liquidation process, the liquidator is given the responsibility to secure
        assets and goods of the Corporate Debtor Under Section 35(1)(b) of IBC.

        “53. For the sake of clarity following questions, may be answered as
        under:
            a) Whether the provisions of the IBC would prevail over the
            Customs Act, and if so, to what extent?

            The IBC would prevail over The Customs Act, to the extent that once
            moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as
            the case may be, the Respondent authority only has a limited
            jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and
            other levies. The Respondent authority does not have the power to
            initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided
            under the Customs Act.

            b) Whether the Respondent could claim title over the goods and issue
            notice to sell the goods in terms of the Customs Act when the
            liquidation process has been initiated? answered in negative.

            54. On the basis of the above discussions, following are our
            conclusions :

                i) Once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5)
                of the IBC as the case may be, the Respondent authority only has
                a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of
                customs duty and other levies. The Respondent authority does
                not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of
                sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act.

                ii) After such assessment, the Respondent authority has to
                submit its claims (concerning customs dues/operational debt) in
                terms of the procedure laid down, in strict compliance of the
                time periods prescribed under the IBC, before the adjudicating
                authority.

                iii) In any case, the IRP/RP/liquidator can immediately secure
                goods from the Respondent authority to be dealt with
                appropriately, in terms of the IBC.”



SQ Pathan                             12 of 20
                                                              WP-6845-2023.doc


16.    The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court directs, in case of custom

duty, to submit the assessed claims under the IBC and has construed the

issuance of demand notice for non payment of duty as initiation of legal

proceedings against Corporate Debtor.

17.    In the present case, the impugned order passed under Section 7A

of the Provident Fund Act, not only assesses the outstanding dues from

the Corporate Debtor at Rs.1,22,48,716/- but also orders the payment

by the Corporate Debtor within a period of 15 days failing which the

action for recovery will be initiated and directs as under:

        1)    Recovery action will be taken as per provision under
        Section 8B to 8G of the Act, 1952.

        2)    This assessment is irrespective of interest u/s 7A and
        damages u/s 14B of EPF & MP Act, 1952.

        3)    Prosecution under Section 14 read with Para 76 of EPF
        & MP Act, 1952 and Scheme framed thereunder will be
        initiated.
18.    The impugned order is thus a demand raised upon the Corporate

Debtor to make the payment of the assessed amount failing which

coercive action would be initiated. In my view, it is not merely an

assessment proceeding, but proceeding in nature of recovery

impermissible during moratorium. The impugned order was passed on

24th February, 2023 and it may well be argued that the impugned order

is passed after approval of resolution plan and the moratorium ceased



SQ Pathan                        13 of 20
                                                                      WP-6845-2023.doc


to have effect. The amendment of Section 31 of IBC gives the answer to

the status of claims against the Corporate Debtor and its assets after

approval of resolution plan. Once the resolution plan is approved, the

pre-resolution approval claims are extinguished by reason of the

amendment to Section 31 of the year 2026. Sub Section 6 of Section 31

came to be introduced vide Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

(Amendment) Act, 2026 notified on 26th May, 2026 which reads as

under:

      “(6)    Where the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan
      under sub-section (1),—

            (a) unless otherwise provided in the resolution plan, any claim,
            against the corporate debtor and its assets under any other law for
            the time being in force, prior to the date of approval, shall be
            extinguished; and
            (b) no proceedings shall be continued or instituted against the
            corporate debtor or its assets on the basis of such claims, including
            proceedings for assessment of the claims.

      Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby clarified that
      nothing in this section shall affect a claim or any proceeding in respect of
      a person who was a promoter or in the management or control of the
      corporate debtor, a guarantor of the corporate debtor or any person
      having a joint liability or a joint and several liability with the corporate
      debtor, as the case may be.

      Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby clarified that
      if a person has a joint liability or a joint and several liability with the
      corporate debtor for payment of debt owed to a creditor before the
      approval of resolution plan, and such person makes a payment for such
      debt after the approval of the resolution plan, then any right of such
      person to be indemnified by the corporate debtor shall be extinguished.

      Explanation III.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the
      provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) shall be deemed to apply to the
      resolution plan that is approved under sub-section (1), on and from the


SQ Pathan                             14 of 20
                                                          WP-6845-2023.doc


      date of commencement of this Code, except for matters that have
      attained finality under this Code.".



19.    Sub-section (6) has the effect of extinguishing all pre-resolution

approval claims unless provided in the resolution plan. The claim of

Respondent No.2 as allowed in the resolution plan is saved by reason of

sub-section (6) of Section 31, but not the amount determined by the

impugned order. Clause (b) of sub section (6) of Section 31 prohibits

continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor or its assets

on the basis of such claims, including proceedings for assessment of the

claims. Explanation-III gives a retrospective effect to Sub-section 6 of

Section 31. Clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 31 specifically

prohibits proceedings for assessment of claim, even if it is considered

that the inquiry was conducted only for assessment of the PF claims

under Section 7A of Provident Fund Act.

20.    As the inquiry under Section 7A of the PF Act continued after

initiation of moratorium, the same was prohibited under Section 14 of

IBC and the resultant quantification and post-resolution approval claim,

stand extinguished in view of Section 31(6) of IBC and cannot be

recovered as directed by the impugned order.

21.         It is an admitted position that the Respondent No.2 lodged a

claim with the Resolution Professional on 7 th May, 2021, at the time



SQ Pathan                         15 of 20
                                                         WP-6845-2023.doc


when Section 7A inquiry was being conducted parallelly which was

verified and admitted by the resolution professional in full. Annexure 5

of the Resolution Plan notes the claim received from EPFO on 7 th May,

2021 and that the claims have been submitted based on the assessment

order passed by the appropriate authority, which liabilities have not

been provided in the books of accounts of suspended management. A

question would then arise that as the contributions were already

assessed and submitted to the resolution professional, there was no

necessity of conducting Section 7A inquiry. There is no clarity as to

whether the claim which was submitted to the resolution professional

was for the same period for which the assessment was being carried

out. Be that as it may. The resolution plan was approved by the NCLT

vide order dated 29th September 2022 in which the claim of Respondent

No.2 was approved at Rs.2,250/-. The Respondent No.2 was duly

informed about the approval of the resolution of plan on 7 th December

2022 and the cheque of Rs.2,250/- was duly forwarded to Respondent

No.2. The Respondent No.2 has an opportunity of challenging the

resolution plan before NCLAT and demand full payment of the

provident fund dues. The decisions which have been relied upon by

Mr. Chaubey arises out of appeal proceedings before the NCLAT. The

Respondent No.2 herein did not challenge the resolution plan and

instead continued with 7A inquiry.


SQ Pathan                      16 of 20
                                                          WP-6845-2023.doc


22.    In Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited (supra) the Hon’ble Division

Bench of this Court was considering the exception taken to the claim of

the Provident Fund department to recover PF dues of the employees

which are not part of the resolution plan. In that case, there was no

proof of claim filed by the EPFO and resultantly the dues were not

made part of the resolution plan. The contention raised therein was

that after the approval of the resolution plan, it was not permissible for

the Respondent to raise the claim as it stood extinguished. In that case,

there was Section 7A order passed and the challenge to the demand

notice was given up restricting the issue to the extinguishment of claim

of EPFO upon approval of the resolution plan. The Hon’ble Division

Bench also considered the plea that PF dues cannot form part of the

resolution plan. The Hon’ble Division Bench held that the Employees

Provident Fund contribution cannot be included in the definition of

assets in view of Explanation (a) to Section 18(1) of IBC and there would

be no obligation upon the Provident Fund Department to lodge a claim

for dues in that regard with RP and get such claim verified so as to be

included in the resolution plan. The Hon'ble Division Bench also

considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Ghanashyam Mishra (supra) and held that the payment of employers

contribution cannot be construed to mean payment to the central

government, any state government or any local authority and would not


SQ Pathan                       17 of 20
                                                         WP-6845-2023.doc


fall within the meaning of operational debt as defined in Section 5(21)

and would not be a claim which has to be included in the resolution plan,

non inclusion of which would result in the liability being wiped out in

terms of what has been held in Ghanashyam Mishra (supra).

23.    This Court is informed that the decision of Dalmia Cement

(Bharat) Limited (supra) is challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court

which had granted interim protection against recovery.

24.    During the pendency of the present petition and subsequent to

the decision in the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited (supra) in

view of the legislative amendment to IBC, the decision in the case of

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited (supra) is considerably watered down.

In any event, the issue in the present case is about the legality of

continuation with Section 7A enquiry during period of moratorium,

which has to be answered against Respondent No.2. The said issue was

not in consideration in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited (supra).

25.    The impugned order proposes recovery under Sections 8B to 8G

of PF Act, imposes damages under Section 14B interest under Section

7Q and prosecution under Section 14, whereas Section 32A of IBC

provides immunity in respect of offences committed prior to

commencement of CIRP from the date the resolution plan has been

approved, if the resolution plan results in change of management or

control of the corporate debtor to another entity. Section 32A also


SQ Pathan                      18 of 20
                                                           WP-6845-2023.doc


protects the property of the corporate debtor in relation to such an

offence and the impugned order which provides for recovery action

under Section 8B to 8G of the Provident Fund Act qua the assets of the

corporate debtor is unsustainable. [See Shiv Charan vs Adjudicating

Authority (supra)].

26.    The “clean slate” principle enunciated in the decision of

Ghanshyam Mishra And Sons Private Limited (supra) has been given

legislative effect by introducing Sub Section (6) to Section 31 of IBC.

The conspectus of above discussion is that the impugned order dated

24th February, 2023 is unsustainable for the following reasons:

        (a)   Section 7A enquiry was continued during the period of

        moratorium, which is prohibited under Section 14 of IBC.

        (b)   The enquiry culminated in the impugned order in

        nature of recovery proceedings, after the approval of

        resolution plan, which claim stands extinguished by reason of

        Section 31(6) of IBC.

        (c)   The Respondent No.2 had lodged its claim with IRP,

        which was given effect in the Resolution Plan and there is no

        challenge to the Resolution Plan by the Respondent No.2.

        (d)   The provisions of Section 32A grants immunity to the

        Corporate Debtor and its assets, which forms part of the



SQ Pathan                        19 of 20
                                                        WP-6845-2023.doc


        Resolution Plan, upon change in character of ownership and

        control of the Corporate Debtor.


27.    In light of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 24 th

February, 2023 is clearly unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set

aside. The Petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute.




                                     [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




SQ Pathan                       20 of 20