In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union, the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). The primary reason for various interpretations of how PF dues are treated under the Code ensues from the overlapping nature of certain provisions within the Code itself, the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”) and the Companies Act, 2013. The article traces the judicial trend in treatment of EPF dues under the code and analyses the reasoning put forth by various adjudicating authorities in deciding on the rights of the employees of the corporate debtor.Continue Reading Treatment of Employees Provident Fund Dues under the IBC
Sumit Attri is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution Practice at the Delhi NCR Office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and an AOR for the firm. Sumit focuses on disputes in relation to insolvency proceedings, arbitration (domestic and international), corporate commercial and contractual litigation, white collar crimes, criminal matters, environmental and mining matters. He regularly appears and argues matters before the Supreme Court, High Court, Tribunals and Regulatory Authorities. He can be reached at email@example.com
Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”).Continue Reading Limitation under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Too Strict Interpretation of the Law?