Eleven days past the 45-day limit, EPFO loses Rs 4.56 lakh PF appeal: RP silence does not stop the clock

The Vilsons Roofing plan paid every admitted provident fund rupee upfront, the Principal Bench found. The unpaid Rs 4,56,121 was the rejected and under-verification slice that EPFO never challenged under Section 60(5), and a CIRP regulation cannot enlarge a period fixed by Parliament.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has dismissed an appeal by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) against the approval of the resolution plan for Vilsons Roofing Products Pvt Ltd. The appeal came after the 45-day outer limit in Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the tribunal had no power to condone the delay.

The judgment of 29 October 2026 was authored by Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical), sitting with Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial). The Principal Bench also rejected the appeal on merits. EPFO had not shown that the unpaid Rs 4,56,121 was protected provident fund principal rather than interest and damages assessed after the insolvency began.

A roofing company, two PF offices, one gap

Vilsons Roofing Products was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) on 27 October 2023 on a Section 7 petition by Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd. Pegasus holds 100 per cent of the voting share in the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

A consortium of Pradeep Agarwal, Manmohan Agarwal and Saket Agarwal submitted a plan dated 23 March 2025, which the CoC first approved on 2 April 2025. On 5 December 2025 the NCLT Mumbai bench sent the plans back to be shared with the suspended board.

The CoC voted again and approved the plan with 100 per cent, the result declared on 4 January 2026.

The plan value is Rs 21,01,97,888, against a fair value of Rs 20,91,68,637 and a liquidation value of Rs 16,61,60,159. For provident fund dues it records Rs 36,90,344 claimed, Rs 32,34,223 admitted and a provision of Rs 32,34,223, payable upfront within 60 days of the effective date.

Two EPFO offices had claims. The Kolhapur regional office claim of Rs 21,36,564 was admitted in full. The Raipur regional office filed Rs 13,88,701 on 30 May 2024 and, after the resolution professional (RP) asked for the claim in Form F, revised it to Rs 15,53,780 on 9 August 2024.

In between, the Bilaspur district office passed an order under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on 19 July 2024. Orders for interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B followed on 2 August 2024.

The list of creditors uploaded on 30 September 2024 admitted Rs 10,97,659 of the Raipur claim, rejected Rs 1,77,440 and marked Rs 2,78,681 as under verification. The unpaid Rs 4,56,121 that EPFO carried to the appellate tribunal is exactly those two figures added together.

The appeal that arrived in June

The NCLT Mumbai bench approved the plan on 28 April 2026. EPFO said the RP never communicated the order and that its office received a copy only on 10 June 2026. A legal opinion came on 13 June, the zonal office assigned counsel on 15 June, and the appeal was prepared and sent for approval on 19 June.

EPFO pleaded a delay of 26 days and sought condonation in I.A. No. 5178 of 2026. It relied on Regulation 39(5A) of the CIRP Regulations, which requires the RP to intimate each claimant within 15 days of plan approval, and argued that the respondents could not profit from their own default.

On merits, EPFO argued that provident fund dues are the money of employees held in custody, kept out of the Section 53 waterfall by Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Code, and carrying a first charge under Section 11(2) of the EPF Act.

It relied on the NCLAT ruling in Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association and on Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt.

The successful resolution applicant answered that EPFO had filed and revised its claim, pursued it with the RP and even issued a notice of dues on 18 November 2025, so the plea of ignorance contradicted the record. The 30 days plus a maximum 15-day extension under Section 61(2) was mandatory, and a delay beyond it could not be condoned.

Gaurav Varma appeared for EPFO. Rajeev Pandey appeared for Vandana Garg, chairperson of the monitoring committee, and Rahul Dubey for the successful resolution applicant.

Counting from 28 April

The bench framed two points at paragraph 31. The first was whether the appeal was filed within the time allowed by Section 61(2) and, if not, whether the delay could be condoned. The second:

Whether, in any case, the unpaid sum of Rs. 4,56,121/- is a provident fund due that the plan was bound to provide for. (para 31)

It decided both together. The order was pronounced on 28 April 2026. Counting from the next day, the 30 days ended on 28 May and the 45 days on 12 June.

A delay of 26 days, as EPFO itself pleaded, put the filing at about 23 June. That is 56 days after the order and 11 days beyond the outer limit.

EPFO's own chronology pointed the same way. Even on its account, the appeal was only sent for approval on 19 June, a week after the outer limit had run out.

Knowledge did not help. Under V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd, (2022) 2 SCC 244, limitation under Section 61(2) runs from pronouncement, not from upload or from when the aggrieved party learns of the order.

EPFO had not applied for a certified copy, so Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act was unavailable. Section 14 had no place because no earlier proceeding had been pursued in a wrong forum.

On the outer limit, the bench followed Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products and its own order in Keshav Kumar Nachani v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company, where an appeal filed on 29 June 2026 against an order of 17 April 2026 was dismissed as beyond 45 days.

A regulation cannot stretch an Act

The Regulation 39(5A) argument drew a two-part answer. The sub-regulation, inserted by the Fifth Amendment of 2020, imposes a duty on the RP after approval. It does not say that a claimant's time to appeal begins only when the intimation is received.

Second, a regulation made by the IBBI “cannot enlarge a period fixed by an Act of Parliament”, the bench held at paragraph 37. A failure to intimate may expose the RP to action before the IBBI, but it cannot extend the statutory period for appeal.

The bench also asked what EPFO had done with the list of creditors of 30 September 2024. If it saw the list, it had about nineteen months to move the NCLT under Section 60(5) while the CIRP was pending, and offered no explanation. If it never saw the list, it left its own claim unattended throughout.

A claimant that has lodged a claim is expected to follow what happens to it, the bench said. Absence of knowledge born of such inattention is not sufficient cause even for the first 15 days beyond the 30-day period. EPFO is a statutory body, but the Code makes no distinction in the limitation that applies to it.

What is inside the unpaid Rs 4.56 lakh

Although limitation was enough to dispose of the appeal, the bench decided the merits as well. The dues arise from the savings of employees and the question recurs before the tribunal, it said, adding that the finding on merits is independent of the finding on limitation.

The protected character of PF dues is settled. Section 36(4)(a)(iii) keeps provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund sums out of the liquidation estate, and Sunil Kumar Jain places them outside Section 53(1). Jet Aircraft directed a successful resolution applicant to pay PF dues in full, a challenge the Supreme Court dismissed on 30 January 2023.

State Bank of India v. Murari Lal Jalan and Florian Fritsch, (2025) 4 SCC 354, again required upfront payment. And Section 11(2) of the EPF Act, as read in Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank, (2009) 10 SCC 123, covers Section 7Q interest and Section 14B damages within any amount due from an employer.

Against that stands Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Rachna Jhunjhunwala, Civil Appeal No. 9768 of 2026. There the Supreme Court upheld a plan that paid the crystallised contribution but left out Section 7Q interest and Section 14B damages not determined before the CIRP began. Such claims are contingent, and the CoC may or may not provide for them.

The Court relied on Essar Steel for the rule that a resolution applicant must know the liabilities it takes over. That made the composition of the Rs 4,56,121 decisive, and the record did not disclose it.

EPFO gave totals for the claim, the admitted part, the rejected part and the part under verification. It did not say how much was contribution, interest or damages.

The timing mattered. The CIRP began on 27 October 2023; the Section 7A, 7Q and 14B orders came nine to ten months later, and the first claim was filed before even the Section 7A order. Interest or damages not determined before 27 October 2023 could lawfully be left out; any unpaid contribution would attract the Section 36(4)(a)(iii) protection.

The burden of showing that the unpaid part was protected principal lay on EPFO, and it had not discharged it. Relief (b) in the appeal was also wider than the grievance. It sought payment of the whole Rs 15,53,780, though Rs 10,97,659 of that was already admitted and provided for.

On the figures recorded by the NCLT, the plan provided for all admitted provident fund dues in full and upfront, which is what Jet Aircraft requires. The grievance, the bench said at paragraph 44, was about how much was admitted, “not about the plan’s treatment of what was admitted”.

That grievance had a remedy at the right time. Under Essar Steel, a claimant dissatisfied with the RP decision on its claim may approach the NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) while the CIRP is on. EPFO did not.

Once a plan is approved, claims not provided for stand extinguished under Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company, (2021) 9 SCC 657. A first appeal, the bench said, is not the place to reopen verification of a claim that could have been taken up at the right time.

Order

I.A. No. 5178 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, the delay lying beyond the 45-day period in Section 61(2). Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1325 of 2026 was dismissed as barred by limitation and, independently, on merits.

The NCLT Mumbai bench order of 28 April 2026 approving the Vilsons Roofing resolution plan stands affirmed. There was no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.