# In the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II, Rourkela Employees' Provident Fund Organization Vs. Sumit Binani and Anr. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 51 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-01-27. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00392. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner filed an appeal against an order dated 17th July…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 27 Jan 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00392
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/regional-provident-fund-commissioner-ii-rourkela-employees-provident-fund-organi-13122072

## Summary

### Background

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner filed an appeal against an order dated 17th July 2018, by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench, which approved a Resolution Plan for Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. The Resolution Plan was initially set aside on 9th July 2019, leading to a Liquidation Order. However, the Resolution Plan was restored on 3rd March 2020. The appellant claims they couldn't challenge the plan earlier due to intervening developments.

## Facts

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner filed an appeal against the Impugned Order dated 17th July 2018, passed by the NCLT Cuttack Bench, which approved the Resolution Plan for Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. Subsequently, on 9th July 2019, the Adjudicating Authority set aside the Resolution Plan and ordered liquidation. However, on 3rd March 2020, the Resolution Plan was restored by the Tribunal. The appellant claims they moved the Liquidator with claims related to the provident fund, but the Liquidator stated that the Resolution Plan had been restored, and he was no longer the Liquidator. The appellant argues that intervening developments prevented them from challenging the Resolution Plan earlier. The court noted that the Impugned Order was passed on 17.07.2018 and set

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the appeal filed by the Regional …

**Ratio:** Section 61(2) of an unspecified act stipulates a 30-day period for filing an appeal, and

…

**Reasoning:** The court observed that the Impugned Order was passed on 17.07.2018, and the appeal was

…

**Interpretation:** Section 61(2) sets a strict timeline for filing appeals, and the Appellate

…

**Application:** The court applied the 30-day appeal period and the 15-day condonation limit to

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Ashok Kumar…
- **Appellants:** Regional Provident…
- **Respondents:** Adhunik Metaliks…; Sumit B…

## Timeline

- **2018-07-17 — Impugned…**: NCLT, Cuttack Bench, approved the…
- **2019-07-09 — Liquidation…**: Adjudicating Authority set aside the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(2) — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/regional-provident-fund-commissioner-ii-rourkela-employees-provident-fund-organi-13122072