Madras High Court
Central Board Of Trustees vs The Deputy Registrar on 1 September, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
W.P.No.26326 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.26326 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.28774, 28776 and 28779 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.1986 of 2025
Central Board of Trustees,
Represented by its
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office, Tambaram,
No.3, Rajaji Salai,
Tambaram,
Chennai – 600 045. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Registrar,
National Company Law Tribunal,
Corporate Bhawan,
III Floor,
No.29, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.Mr.M.Murugesan,
Liquidator of K.N.Interior Designs and
Engineering Private Limited,
New No.41, Old No.17,
16th Avenue, Ashok Nagar,
Chennai – 600 033. ... Respondents
1/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.No.26326 of 2024
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st
Respondent in its Order dated 08.08.2024 in IA(IBC)/1382(CHE)/2023 in
CP(IB)/87(CHE)/2021 and Order dated 28.06.2024 in
IA(IBC)/1676(CHE)/2023 and IA(IBC)/1677(CHE)/2023 in IA/699/CHE/2022
in CP(IB)/87(CHE)/2021 and quash the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to
accept and pay the full claim of Rs.21,94,745/- of the Petitioner.
(Prayer amended as per Order dated 28.11.2024
in W.M.P.No.34698 of 2024 in W.P.No.26326 of 2024.)
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirunavukarasu
For Respondents
For R1 : Tribunal
For R2 : Mr.S.Sathiyanarayanan
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.) In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 28.06.2024 in IA(IBC)/1676(CHE)/2023 and IA(IBC)/1677(CHE)/2023 in IA/699/CHE/2022 in CP(IB)/87(CHE)/2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai.
2/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
2. By the Impugned Order, applications filed by the Petitioner to set aside the order dated 23.12.2022 of the Liquidator, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner on 21.10.2022 for a sum of Rs. 21,94,745/- by the 2 nd Respondent and the petition filed for condoning the delay of 255 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 23.12.2022 of the Liquidator was dismissed on the ground that liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was a time bound process which came to an end.
3. Relevant portion of the Impugned Order dated 28.06.2024 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai, is extracted hereunder:-
“20. Heard the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
21. IBC, 2016 is a time bound process. The Liquidator while rejecting the claim on 23.12.2022 had clearly stated the reason that the process of Liquidation has almost come to an end. The distribution of the amount to the stakeholders had already began at that point of time. The Applicant has pleaded that standing counsel was sick and there was delay. The reasons stated by the Applicant for condoning the delay of almost 255 days do not appear to be plausible.
22. After distributing the entire amount to the stakeholders as per Section 53 of IBC, 2016, the Liquidator has filed an 3/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 Application seeking dissolution of the Corporate Debtor and the same is pending adjudication before this Tribunal.
23. This Tribunal is persuaded by the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Audit), Raichur Vs. Surana Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation) & Anr. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1525 of 2019 dated 07.02.2020, wherein the Hon’ble NCLAT dismissed the application filed by the Applicant in relation to the Appeal against the order of the liquidator and also held that liquidation process is a time bound process and the Liquidator has to conclude the proceedings within one year.
24. Under Regulation 44(1) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Liquidator has been directed to liquidate the Corporate Debtor within one year from the date of commencement of the liquidation proceedings. Regulation 44(2) stipulates that, after the expiry of one year, the liquidator shall file an application to the Authority to continue the liquidation period along with a report and explain why the liquidation has not been completed. Thus, it can been seen that the Liquidation is a time bound process and the Liquidator being made accountable is required to explain if there is any delay caused in the liquidation process.
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd & Another in Civil Appeal No. 4952 of 2019, in relation to the aspect of limitation has restated the well established and well settled principles that “there is no equity about limitation”, we are unable to entertain this Application/Appeal.” 4/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
4. This Court vide Order dated 28.11.2024 in W.M.P.No.34698 of 2024 in W.P.No.26326 of 2024 amended the prayer to challenge the Order dated 08.08.2024 in IA(IBC)/1382(CHE)/2023 in CP(IB)/87(CHE)/2021 in the Application filed by the 2nd Respondent Liquidator under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking for Dissolution of the Corporate Debtor viz., K N Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited.
The 1st Respondent vide the aforesaid Order dated 08.08.2024 ordered for the dissolution of the Corporate Debtor viz., K N Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:-
5. The brief facts of the case are that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor namely K.N.Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited, Ashok Nagar, Chennai whose interest is now represented by its Liquidator, the 2nd Respondent.
6. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) vide Order dated 19.09.2022, had ordered liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, namely, K.N.Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.
NCLT had appointed the 2nd Respondent Mr.M.Murugasen as the Liquidator for the said Corporate Debtor.
5/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
7. Pursuant to the order dated 19.09.2022, the 2nd Respondent Liquidator initiated the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor. On 24.09.2022, the Liquidator issued a public announcement fixing the last date for submission of claims as on 19.10.2022.
8. Facts on record reveal that the Petitioner had filed a Claim Statement by way of an Email dated 21.10.2022 in Annexure-A with the 2nd Respondent Liquidator, claiming a sum of Rs.21,94,745/- towards Provident Fund and allied dues Corporate Debtor namely K.N.Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited. By Email dated 29.10.2022 of the Liquidator, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected. However, the 2nd Respondent Liquidator further vide Email dated 23.12.2022, rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner did not file the claim in Form C and failed to comply with Regulation 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.
9. Relevant portion of the Email communication dated 23.12.2022 of the 2nd Respondent Liquidator is extracted hereunder:-
“Dear Sir, we refer to our mail dated 29-10-2022. Now we have received one letter dated 19-10-2022 (received by REGISTERED POST ON 15-12-2022), claiming interest of 6/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 Rs.4,01,246/- and Damages of Rs.7,52,471/- in respect of M/s.K N Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited – under Liquidation. In this connection we observe this amount was also included in the earlier claim of Rs.21,94,745/- which was duly rejected by our mails under reference. It is not clear how the amount due has come down drastically. In view of what has been stated in our mail dated 29-10-2022 we are not in a position to consider favourably.”
10. The Petitioner thus filed IA(IBC)/1676(CHE)/2023 and IA(IBC)/1677(CHE)/2023 under Section 42 of IBC, 2016 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 respectively against the aforesaid order of rejection dated 23.12.2022 by the 2nd Respondent Liquidator before the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai, praying for condonation of delay of 255 days in filing the appeal and to set aside the order of rejection of claim dated 21.10.2022 vide communication by email dated 23.12.2022 of the 2nd Respondent Liquidator and to direct the 2nd Respondent Liquidator to accept the claim of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs.21,94,745/- and pay the claim of the Petitioner in priority to all the dues.
11. However, the aforesaid applications filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed vide Impugned Order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai. Relevant portion of which 7/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 has been extracted above. Thus, this Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Impugned Order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai.
12. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Corporate Debtor, namely, K.N.Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited, Ashok Nagar, Chennai was brought under the purview of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 01.06.2013.
13. It is stated that the Corporate Debtor, namely, K.N.Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited, Ashok Nagar, Chennai defaulted in the remittance of PF dues for the period between March, 2016 to July, 2021 and therefore, the Petitioner had initiated an enquiry against the Corporate Debtor, namely, K.N.Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited, Ashok Nagar, Chennai under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for not complying with the provisions of the Act.
14. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the Corporate Debtor, namely, K.N.Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 8/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 defaulted in payment of the regular dues from April, 2016 and had not submitted any records even after repeated requests.
15. It is stated that the monthly salary for the financial year has been worked out by equally dividing the salary component in the employees' benefit expense head by 12 and Employees Provident Fund salary has been worked out as 70% of the monthly salary and that the dues have been calculated accordingly.
16. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a statutory body and the contribution, interest and damages payable under Section 7A, 7Q and 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are statutory dues and claimed dues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It is stated that the dues of the Petitioner are not part of the liquidation estate of the Corporate Debtor and therefore, the Petitioner is fully entitled for the claims.
17. It is submitted that the Petitioner has priority to claim its dues over all other dues of other secured creditors in terms of Section 11 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is submitted that in 9/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 accordance with Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Act, the claims of the Petitioner have been specifically kept outside the liquidation estate of a Corporate Debtor.
In other words, it is the case of the Petitioner that the claims of the Petitioner have to be settled on first priority basis even before forming the liquidation estate to settle the dues of the other secured creditors.
18. Therefore, the Petitioner submits that even if there was any delay in filing the claims by the Petitioner, the law requires the amounts have to be settled. On this ground also, the Petitioner prays that the Impugned Order dated 23.06.2024 to be quashed.
19. The Impugned Order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai, rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the order of the 2nd Respondent/Liquidator dated 23.12.2022 is defended by the 2nd Respondent/Liquidator stating that the Company has been liquidated and has been dissolved under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
10/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
20. That apart, it is submitted that since there was a failure to file an appeal in time during September, 2023 after the claim was rejected on 23.12.2022, the Order of the 1st Respondent National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai does not warrant an interference. It is further submitted that the Order rejecting the claim that was filed on 21.10.2022 preceded a communication dated 26.10.2022 of the Director of Corporate Debtor, namely, K.N.Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited, Ashok Nagar, Chennai to the effect that there were no dues under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and there shall not be any claims from Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) regarding the employees as none were enrolled after 2016 towards Employees Provident Fund (EPF).
21. It is submitted that the claim of the Petitioner is for the period thereafter (i.e., after 2016) and therefore even on this count, the claim was liable to be rejected apart from the fact that the said Company has been dissolved under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.
11/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 DISCUSSION:-
22. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent and have also perused the materials on record.
23. The facts narrated above indicates that the Corporate Debtor, namely, K.N.Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, was ordered to be liquidated by an Order dated 19.09.2022 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai. The 2nd Respondent/Liquidator had thus issued a Paper Publication and called for the Claim Statements on 24.09.2022, fixing the last date for filing the Claim Statements as 19.10.2022.
24. The Petitioner filed a formal Claim Statement on 21.10.2022, i.e., two days beyond the time stipulated in the said Paper Publication dated 24.09.2022 fixing the last date for filing the Claim Statement as 19.10.2022.
25. Communication dated 23.12.2022 of the 2nd Respondent/Liquidator was impugned before the National Company Law Tribunal [NCLT], Division Bench-I. NCLT, however rejected the claims of the Petitioner submitted on 12/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 21.10.2022 citing earlier e-mail communications dated 26.10.2022 of the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor and e-mail dated 29.10.2022 of the 2nd Respondent Liquidator, wherein it was stated that the claim dated 21.10.2022 of the Petitioner submitted for a sum of Rs. 21,94,745/- had already been rejected stating that no amount was payable to the Petitioner Department as all the employees of the Corporate Debtor had been discharged in the year 2016 and that there were no employees enrolled with the Petitioner Department after the year 2016.
26. Relevant portion of the e-mail dated 29.10.2022 is extracted hereunder:-
“Referring to your email dated 21.10.2022, we have to advise as under:-
1. In compliance with Regulation 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, Form C has to be filed. But not complied with despite out specific requests.
2. We refer to the mail dated 26.10.2022 of Mr.Kannan Suspended MD, addressed to you, a copy is enclosed for your reference, who has categorically submitted that “In view of the above, there shall not be any claims from EPFO regarding out employees as none were enrolled after 2016 in EPF. All the settlements were made during 2016 as mentioned above.” Further, he claims no demand notice earlier and no personal hearing so far.
3. Your email claim is subsequent to the last date of submission as given in Form B i.e, last date 19.10.2022.13/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 Despite the personal intimation of the liquidation process of the CD, there is an inordinate delay in submission of claim.
4. Please take into account Section 14B of the PF Act, which provides as follows:
Section 14B. Power to recover damages:-
Where an employer makes default in the payment of any contribution to the Fund, the Pension fund or the Insurance Fund or in the transfer of accumulations required to be transferred by him under sub-section (2) of section 15 or sub-section (5) of section 17 or in the payment of any charges payable under any other provision of this Act or of any Scheme or Insurance Scheme or under any of the conditions specified under section 17, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner 1 (2011) 2 Comp LJ 465 (SC) 2 Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No.6893 of 2009 dated 08.10.2009 sat 4/8 C.A.No.239 of 2014.doc or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, in this behalf may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages, not exceeding the amount of arrears, as may be specified in the scheme.
Provided that before levying and recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:
The section provides for an adjudication of damages after hearing the employer in the matter. The order passed under Section 14B is subject to an appeal to the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has the power to pass any order confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against or referring the matter back to the authority for a fresh adjudication. It is only after the order of adjudication of damages becomes final that the question of recovery arises. In the present case, there is no adjudication by the authority under Section 14B. (There is not even an inquiry proposed by the authority in the matter of determining damages under Section 14B.) In the absence of an adjudication, there is no provable debt as of the date of Commencement of Liquidation. It is not possible to accept the 14/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 submission that adjudication under Section 14B is merely a matter of calculation. It is actually like a decree or sat 5/8 C.A.239 of 2014.doc order of damages arrived at after hearing the parties and subject to a statutory appeal. Therefore, the liability here is said to arise under a provision of law and is subject to the conditions provided in law.
But even if we were to proceed on the footing that the provident fund forms a contract between itself and its employees and there is a breach of contract on the part of the Company by defaulting in payment of its contributions, there is no debt until the liability on account of such breach is adjudicated and damages are assessed by the adjudicating authority. Till such adjudication is made, there is no debt provable before the Liquidator.
Now the law is well settled that a claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damages assessed by a decree or order of a Court or other adjudicatory authority. When there is a breach of contract, the party who commits the breach does not eo instanti incur any pecuniary obligation, nor does the party complaining of the breach becomes entitled to a debt due from the other party.
7Q. Interest payable by the employer:- The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the Scheme on any amount due from him under this Act from the date on which the amount has become so due till the date of its actual payment.
Provided that higher rate of interest specified in the Scheme shall not exceed the lending rate of interest charged by any scheduled bank.” In the present case the PF amount due itself needs to be arrived at in the light of submissions made by the suspended MD in his said mail. In sum, there is no case for any sum towards damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q, unless said formalities completed.
However, in terms of the directions passed in WP(C) 9530/2020 titled M/s.Civicon Engineering Contracting India Private Limited Vs. Central Board of Trustees and others vide 15/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 order dated 4th December 2020, EPFO's orders have to be uploaded regularly. The directions contained in the said order as under:
“......Accordingly, it is directed that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner (“CPFC”) shall pass immediate practice directions in respect of uploading of all orders which are passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners (RPFCs), Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners (APFC), Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) and any other officials/authorities who adjudicate disputes. The said practice directions shall stipulate the manner of passing orders, timelines for uploading, timelines for communication to parties etc., which shall be adhered to by all the adjudicating authorities/officers. The orders ought to be, in addition, communicated by email to the parties while simultaneously being uploaded on the EPFO webside.
Final orders under Section 14B and Section 7Q may be submitted along with the claim if any.
5. Details of individual employees/workmen wise particulars needed.
6. You are advised to relook into the total claim due from the CD in view of what has been stated above, as any claim due from the employer to be determined by the competent authority as per EPF and MP Act 1952 and to be submitted in FORM C with supporting documents to the liquidator.
In view of the above, your claim vide: your email dated 21.10.2022 is not admitted.
27. The Petitioner had thus filed an appeal before the 1st Respondent NCLT together with an application to condone the delay. The 1 st Respondent NCLT however, dismissed the applications filed by the Petitioner vide Impugned Order dated 28.06.2024 perfunctorily on the ground that liquidation 16/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was a time bound process and since the liquidation process had almost come to end, the applications of the Petitioner could not be entertained.
28. To address the issue involved, it will be useful to refer few provisions from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
29. Section 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deals with the powers and duties of liquidator during the process of liquidation of a Corporate Debtor. Section 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 reads as under:-
“35. Powers and duties of liquidator.— (1) Subject to the directions of the Adjudicating Authority, the liquidator shall have the following powers and duties, namely:—
(a) to verify claims of all the creditors;
(b) to take into his custody or control all the assets, property, effects and actionable claims of the corporate debtor;
(c) to evaluate the assets and property of the corporate debtor in the manner as may be specified by the Board and prepare a report;
(d) to take such measures to protect and preserve the assets and properties of the corporate debtor as he considers necessary;17/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
(e) to carry on the business of the corporate debtor for its beneficial liquidation as he considers necessary;
(f) subject to section 52, to sell the immovable and movable property and actionable claims of the corporate debtor in liquidation by public auction or private contract, with power to transfer such property to any person or body corporate, or to sell the same in parcels in such manner as may be specified; 1 [Provided that the liquidator shall not sell the immovable and movable property or actionable claims of the corporate debtor in liquidation to any person who is not eligible to be a resolution applicant.].
(g) to draw, accept, make and endorse any negotiable instruments including bill of exchange, hundi or promissory note in the name and on behalf of the corporate debtor, with the same effect with respect to the liability as if such instruments were drawn, accepted, made or endorsed by or on behalf of the corporate debtor in the ordinary course of its business;
(h) to take out, in his official name, letter of administration to any deceased contributory and to do in his official name any other act necessary for obtaining payment of any money due and payable from a contributory or his estate which cannot be ordinarily done in the name of the corporate debtor, and in all such cases, the money due and payable shall, for the purpose of enabling the liquidator to take out the letter of administration or recover the money, be deemed to be due to the liquidator himself;
(i) to obtain any professional assistance from any person or appoint any professional, in discharge of his duties, obligations and responsibilities;
(j) to invite and settle claims of creditors and claimants and distribute proceeds in accordance with the provisions of this Code;
18/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
(k) to institute or defend any suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings, civil or criminal, in the name of on behalf of the corporate debtor;
(l) to investigate the financial affairs of the corporate debtor to determine undervalued or preferential transactions;
(m) to take all such actions, steps, or to sign, execute and verify any paper, deed, receipt document, application, petition, affidavit, bond or instrument and for such purpose to use the common seal, if any, as may be necessary for liquidation, distribution of assets and in discharge of his duties and obligations and functions as liquidator;
(n) to apply to the Adjudicating Authority for such orders or directions as may be necessary for the liquidation of the corporate debtor and to report the progress of the liquidation process in a manner as may be specified by the Board; and
(o) to perform such other functions as may be specified by the Board (2) The liquidator shall have the power to consult any of the stakeholders entitled to a distribution of proceeds under section 53: Provided that any such consultation shall not be binding on the liquidator: Provided further that the records of any such consultation shall be made available to all other stakeholders not so consulted, in a manner specified by the Board.”
30. Under Section 36 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the assets of a Corporate Debtor which forms part of the Liquidation estate during the process of liquidation has been specified. Under Section 36(4)(a)(iii), all sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund, the pension 19/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 fund and the gratuity fund shall not be included in the liquidation estate assets and shall not be used for recovery in the liquidation. That apart, the Role of Liquidator is fiduciary in nature. Therefore, a liquidator cannot take a partisan role.
31. Section 36 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is reproduced below:-
“36. Liquidation estate.— (1) For the purposes of liquidation, the liquidator shall form an estate of the assets mentioned in sub-section (3), which will be called the liquidation estate in relation to the corporate debtor.
(2) The liquidator shall hold the liquidation estate as a fiduciary for the benefit of all the creditors. (3) Subject to sub-section (4), the liquidation estate shall comprise all liquidation estate assets which shall include the following:—
(a) any assets over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights, including all rights and interests therein as evidenced in the balance sheet of the corporate debtor or an information utility or records in the registry or any depository recording securities of the corporate debtor or by any other means as may be specified by the Board, including shares held in any subsidiary of the corporate debtor;
(b) assets that may or may not be in possession of the corporate debtor including but not limited to encumbered assets;
(c) tangible assets, whether movable or immovable;20/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
(d) intangible assets including but not limited to intellectual property, securities (including shares held in a subsidiary of the corporate debtor) and financial instruments, insurance policies, contractual rights;
(e) assets subject to the determination of ownership by the court or authority;
(f) any assets or their value recovered through proceedings for avoidance of transactions in accordance with this Chapter;
(g) any asset of the corporate debtor in respect of which a secured creditor has relinquished security interest;
(h) any other property belonging to or vested in the corporate debtor at the insolvency commencement date; and
(i) all proceeds of liquidation as and when they are realised. (4) The following shall not be included in the liquidation estate assets and shall not be used for recovery in the liquidation:—
(a) assets owned by a third party which are in possession of the corporate debtor, including—
(i) assets held in trust for any third party;
(ii) bailment contracts;
(iii) all sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund;
(iv) other contractual arrangements which do not stipulate transfer of title but only use of the assets; and
(v) such other assets as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator;
(b) assets in security collateral held by financial services providers and are subject to netting and set-off in multi- lateral trading or clearing transactions;
21/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
(c) personal assets of any shareholder or partner of a corporate debtor as the case may be provided such assets are not held on account of avoidance transactions that may be avoided under this Chapter;
(d) assets of any Indian or foreign subsidiary of the corporate debtor; or
(e) any other assets as may be specified by the Board, including assets which could be subject to set-off on account of mutual dealings between the corporate debtor and any creditor
32. That apart, under Section 52 and Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, there is a waterfall mechanism which would mandate the liquidator to distribute the proceeds from the sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor and statutory dues are at Sl.No.2.
33. As per Regulation 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, subject to the provisions of Section 53, the liquidator shall not commence distribution of assets of Corporate Debtor before the list of stakeholders and the asset memorandum has been filed with the Adjudicating Authority.
34. The liquidator has to distribute the proceeds from realization within [ninety days] from the receipt of the amount to the stakeholders. The 22/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 insolvency resolution process costs, if any, and the liquidation costs shall be deducted before such distribution is made. While distributing the proceeds from realization, the Liquidator has to take note of the amounts due as claimed and the amounts that are discernible from the records.
35. Regulation 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 is extracted below:-
“Regulation 42: Distribution.
42. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 53, the liquidator shall not commence distribution before the list of stakeholders and the asset memorandum has been filed with the Adjudicating Authority.
(2) The liquidator shall distribute the proceeds from realization within [ninety days] from the receipt of the amount to the stakeholders.
(3) The insolvency resolution process costs, if any, and the liquidation costs shall be deducted before such distribution is made.”
36. Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deals with “Distribution of Assets”. It is extracted below:-
“53. Distribution of assets.— (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law enacted by the Parliament or any State Legislature for the time being in force, the proceeds from the sale of the liquidation assets shall be distributed in the following order of priority and within such period and in such manner as may be specified, namely:— 23/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
(a) the insolvency resolution process costs and the liquidation costs paid in full;
(b) the following debts which shall rank equally between and among the following:— i. workmen’s dues for the period of twenty-four months preceding the liquidation commencement date; and ii. debts owed to a secured creditor in the event such secured creditor has relinquished security in the manner set out in section 52;
(c) wages and any unpaid dues owed to employees other than workmen for the period of twelve months preceding the liquidation commencement date;
(d) financial debts owed to unsecured creditors;
(e) the following dues shall rank equally between and among the following:— i. any amount due to the Central Government and the State Government including the amount to be received on account of the Consolidated Fund of India and the Consolidated Fund of a State, if any, in respect of the whole or any part of the period of two years preceding the liquidation commencement date;
ii. debts owed to a secured creditor for any amount unpaid following the enforcement of security interest;
(f) any remaining debts and dues;
(g) preference shareholders, if any; and
(h) equity shareholders or partners, as the case may be. (2) Any contractual arrangements between recipients under sub- section (1) with equal ranking, if disrupting the order of priority 24/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 under that sub-section shall be disregarded by the liquidator. (3) The fees payable to the liquidator shall be deducted proportionately from the proceeds payable to each class of recipients under sub-section (1), and the proceeds to the relevant recipient shall be distributed after such deduction. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section— i. it is hereby clarified that at each stage of the distribution of proceeds in respect of a class of recipients that rank equally, each of the debts will either be paid in full, or will be paid in equal proportion within the same class of recipients, if the proceeds are insufficient to meet the debts in full; and ii. the term “workmen’s dues” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013).
37. The reasons for rejecting the Claim Statement dated 21.10.2022 extracted in the order dated 29.10.2022 is untenable. It has been rejected only on the ground that it has not been filed in Form-1 and instead had been filed just as an Annexure-A to e-mail dated 21.10.2022 and that there was a delay in filing Claim Statement on 21.10.2022. This rejection, in our view, is a hyper technical one.
25/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
38. There was only a marginal delay of 2 days. Thus, the rejection of the Claim Statement of the Petitioner by the 2nd Respondent/Liquidator was unjustified on account of marginal delay of 2 days without adjudicating the claims of the Petitioner.
39. In any case, even if the 2nd Respondent/Liquidator wanted to reject the Claim Statement of the Petitioner based on the Communication dated 26.10.2022 of the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor, the 2 nd Respondent/Liquidator ought to have sought permission from the 1st Respondent National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai for the reasons stated above.
40. In this connection, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. MST Katiji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107. As per the said decision, law has been settled summarized as follows:-
“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 [Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making 26/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 the application within such period.] of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ”merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice — that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
“1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.
As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of 27/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the “State” which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the “State” is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression “sufficient cause”. So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time-barred, is therefore, set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High 28/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
4. Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.”
41. In our view, the Impugned Order of the 1st Respondent NCLT, rejecting the appeal at the preliminary stage was thus both arbitrary and erroneous and is therefore liable to be set aside.
42. That apart, the 2nd Respondent/Liquidator was not expected to take a rigid view to deny the claims which were otherwise legitimate. That apart, NCLT represented by the 1st Respondent ought to have exercised the discretion under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 as the Petitioner is a Secured Creditor.
43. As a “secured creditor”, the Petitioner stands under a different footing under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, particularly when liquidation is ordered directly without the “Corporate Debtor” undergoing a 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' (CIRP).
29/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
44. The expression “secured creditor” has been defined in Section 3(30) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which means a creditor in favour of whom security interest is created. The definition of “secured creditor” in Section 3(30) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 reads as under:-
3. Definitions.—In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,— (30) “secured creditor” means a creditor in favour of whom security interest is created;
45. The expression “security interest” has been defined in Section 3(31) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which reads as under:-
(31) “security interest” means right, title or interest or a claim to property, created in favour of, or provided for a secured creditor by a transaction which secures payment or performance of an obligation and includes mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment and encumbrance or any other agreement or arrangement securing payment or performance of any obligation of any person: Provided that security interest shall not include a performance guarantee;
46. The Petitioner or for that matter any other Government Entity as a “secured creditor” within the meaning of Section 3(30) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, are entitled to have their claims adjudicated before the 2nd Respondent/Liquidator. Thus, the Employment Provident Fund 30/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 Organisation, the Petitioner is a “secured creditor” within the meaning of Section 3(30) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Tax Officer Vs. Rainbow Papers Limited, (2023) 9 SCC 545 has held as under:-
“29. As argued by the learned Solicitor General, the term “secured creditor” as defined under IBC is comprehensive and wide enough to cover all types of security interests, namely, the right, title, interest or a claim to property, created in favour of, or provided for a secured creditor by a transaction, which secures payment or performance of an obligation and includes mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment and encumbrance or any other agreement or arrangement securing payment or performance of any obligation of any person. 30. The learned Solicitor General rightly argued that in view of the statutory charge in terms of Section 48 of the GVAT Act, the claim of the Tax Department of the State, squarely falls within the definition of “security interest” under Section 3(31) IBC and the State becomes a secured creditor under Section 3(30) of the Code.”
48. That apart, in our view, the 1st Respondent National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai ought to have considered the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., i. Embassy Property Developments Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 13 SCC 308.
ii. State Tax Officer Vs. Rainbow Papers Limited, (2023) 9 SCC 545.
31/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Embassy Property Developments Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 13 SCC 308, held as under:-
“It will be a different matter, if proceedings under statutes like Income Tax Act had attained finality, fastening a liability upon the corporate debtor, since, in such cases, the dues payable to the Government would come within the meaning of the expression 'operational debt' under Section 5(21), making the Government an 'operational creditor' in terms of section 5(20). The moment the dues to the Government are crystaliised and what remains is only payment, the claim of the Government will have to be adjudicated and paid only in a manner prescribed in the resolution plan as approved by the Adjudicating Authority, namely, the National Company Law Tribunal”.
50. The Madurai Bench of this Court on earlier occasion dealt with the scheme of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and to few definitions in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bringing out the difference in the settlement of dues with regard to secured creditors in the method stipulated between Section 52 and 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in M/s.Avenue Realty (A Partnership Firm) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner in W.P.(MD) No.8260 of 2025 vide Order dated 14.08.2025.
“CONCLUSION:-
118. That apart, a secured creditor like the 1st Respondent stands on a different footing and is a class apart from 32/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 other creditors. As per Section 52(1) of the Code, a secured creditor in the liquidation proceedings at best may relinquish its security interest to the liquidation estate and receive proceeds from the sale of assets from the liquidator in the manner specified in Section 53 of the Code or realize its security interest in the manner specified in Section 52 of the Code.
119. Under Section 52(1) of the Code, a Secured Creditor in liquidation proceedings may:-
(a) relinquish its security interest to the liquidation estate and receive proceeds from the sale of assets by the liquidator in the manner specified in Section 53.
(b) realise its security interest in the manner specified in this section.
120. If a secured creditor decides to realise its security, the amount of insolvency resolution process costs payable by the secured creditor shall be deducted from the realised proceeds. Where there is a surplus realised from the enforcement of a security interest, the secured creditor has to account for the same to the liquidator.
121. Similarly, if the proceeds from the realisation of the secured assets are not sufficient to repay the debts owed to the secured creditor, the secured creditor may claim in accordance with the priority of payments under Section 53 for such upaid portion. Thus, the claim of a secured creditor is never subservical.
122. As per Section 52(2) of the Code, if a secured creditor intends to realize the security interest under clause (b) of 33/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 sub-section (1), he/she has to inform the liquidator of such security interest and identify the asset subject to such security interest to be realized. Thus, an independent right is vested with the secured creditor in respect of security interest.
123. Section 52(1) of the Code is reproduced below:-
52. Secured creditor in liquidation proceedings. -
(1) A secured creditor in the liquidation proceedings may-
(a) relinquish its security interest to the liquidation estate and receive proceeds from the sale of assets by the liquidator in the manner specified in section 53; or
(b)realise its security interest in the manner specified in this section.
(2) Where the secured creditor realises security interest under clause (b) of subsection (1), he shall inform the liquidator of such security interest and identify the asset subject to such security interest to be realised.
(3) Before any security interest is realised by the secured creditor under this section, the liquidator shall verify such security interest and permit the secured creditor to realise only such security interest, the existence of which may be proved either –
(a)by the records of such security interest maintained by an information utility; or 34/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
(b)by such other means as may be specified by the Board.
(4) A secured creditor may enforce, realise, settle, compromise or deal with the secured assets in accordance with such law as applicable to the security interest being realised and to the secured creditor and apply the proceeds to recover the debts due to it.
(5) If in the course of realising a secured asset, any secured creditor faces resistance from the corporate debtor or any person connected therewith in taking possession of, selling or otherwise disposing off the security, the secured creditor may make an application to the Adjudicating Authority to facilitate the secured creditor to realise such security interest in accordance with law for the time being in force.
(6) The Adjudicating Authority, on the receipt of an application from a secured creditor under subsection (5) may pass such order as may be necessary to permit a secured creditor to realise security interest in accordance with law for the time being in force.
(7) Where the enforcement of the security interest under sub-section (4) yields an amount by way of proceeds which is in excess of the debts due to the secured creditor, the secured creditor shall-
(a)account to the liquidator for such surplus;
and (b)tender to the liquidator any surplus funds received from the enforcement of such secured 35/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 assets.
.......................
129. Thus, even if no Claim Statement was filed, a secured creditor stands on a separate foot and can enforce the right independently. Only if the secured creditor realizes its security interest under Section 52(1)(a) of the Code, it will stand in queue under the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of Code.
130. Therefore, there has been a grave error committed by the liquidator in rejecting the claim of the 1st Respondent. Further, the request for bringing the security interest of the 1st Respondent to sale was made as early as 10.08.2020 whereas, the asset was brought to sale only on 24.10.2024 pursuant to E-auction Notice dated 18.11.2024 which is long after the request of the 1st Respondent on 10.08.2020 wherein it has been clearly stated that the 3rd Respondent corporate/operational debtor M/s.RLS Alloys Private Limited was in arrears of tax for the Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2014-2015.
131. The claim of a secured creditor under Section 52 and Section 53 of the Code makes it clear that the right of the secured creditor is sacrosanct and cannot be diluted as compared to different categories of creditors.
132. The crown debt is on the top of pyramid after the interest of the workers are taken care, where there is no secured asset. If the secured creditor chooses to work out the remedy independently, only the excess amount recovered by such secured creditor is to be paid back to the liquidator for making it available for distribution to the other category of credit.
36/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024
133. In fact a somewhat similar provision was also available under Section 12(2) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 which now stands repealed after the Code came into force on 28th May, 2016. However, it operated differently. As per Section 12(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, if the petitioning creditor was a secured creditor, in his claim petition, he has to state that he was willing torelinquish his security for the benefit of the creditors in the event of the debtor being adjudged insolvent or give an estimate of the value of the security.
134. In the latter case, he may be admitted as a petitioning creditor to the extent of the balance of the debt due to him after deducting the value so estimated in the same way as if he were an unsecured creditor. Section 12(2) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 reads as under:-
“12. Conditions on which creditor may petition.
(1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless-
(a)the debt owing by the debtor to the creditor, or, if two or more creditors join in the petition, the aggregate amount of debts owing to such creditors, amounts to five hundred rupees, and
(b)the debt is a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time, and
(c) the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded has occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition.
Provided that where the said period of three 37/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 months referred to in clause (c) expires on a day when the Court is closed, the insolvency petition may be presented on the day on which the Court reopens. [Added by Insolvency Law (Amendment) Act, 1950 (3 of 1950), section
2.].
(2) If the petitioning creditor is a secured creditor, he shall in his petition either state that he is willing to relinquish his security for the benefit of the creditors in the event of the debtor being adjudged insolvent or give an estimate of the value of the security. In the latter case he may be admitted as a petitioning creditor to the extent of the balance of the debt due to him after deducting the value so estimated in the same way as if he were an unsecured creditor.”
135. In my view, the IRP/RP/Liquidator could not have ignored the rights of the 1st Respondent, as the 1st Respondent is a secured creditor within the meaning of Section 3(30) of the Code.
136. Since the 1st Respondent is a secured creditor, registration of Sale Certificate dated 23.01.2025 pursuant to auction held on 24.12.2024 cannot be countenanced. The sale made has seriously compromised the rights of the 1st Respondent as a “secured creditor”.
137. Since the Petitioner has invested a sum of Rs.3,05,55,143/- for purchasing the security interest of the 1st Respondent, the only remedy available/left for the Petitioner is to recover the amount from the person to 38/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 whom amounts were paid by the liquidator through liquidation process.
138. The liquidator has to assist the Petitioner for recovering the amount(s) that may have been paid to the creditors who may have filed claim statements and would have received the amount from the liquidator. The amount recovered may be paid to the 1 st Respondent. Once the amount is fully paid to the 1st Respondent, the impugned attachment will stand vacated /lifted.
139. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for the present with the above observation. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
51. In view of the above discussion, the Impugned Orders dated 28.06.2024 of the 1st Respondent is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and therefore the case is remitted back to the 2nd Respondent/Liquidator to adjudicate the claims of the Petitioner on merits as to whether the Petitioner is indeed entitled for the claims for the aforesaid sum of Rs.21,94,745/-.
52. If the Petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid sum of Rs.21,94,745/-, the 2nd Respondent/Liquidator is also hereby directed to take steps to settle the dues of the Petitioner from the proceeds from the liquidation estate which might have been settled in favour of other creditors. This exercise shall be completed 39/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm ) W.P.No.26326 of 2024 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Until then, the Order dated 08.08.2024 of the 1 st Respondent shall be kept in abeyance.
53. This Writ Petition is therefore allowed with the above direction. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.S.N., J.]
01.09.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
arb
To
The Deputy Registrar,
National Company Law Tribunal,
Corporate Bhawan,
III Floor,
No.29, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
40/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.No.26326 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb
W.P.No.26326 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.28774, 28776 and 28779 of 2024
and W.M.P.No.1986 of 2025
01.09.2025
41/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )