RECOVERY OFFICER, THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. DY. REGISTRAR, NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the Recovery Officer of the Regional Provident Fund, challenging the order passed by the first respondent/Tribunal in Original Application No.MA/868/2019 dtd. 19/2/2020 by which the petitioner's request seeking stay of operation of the Tribunal against the corporate debtor with the consequential relief towards the sale was rejected by directing the petitioner to lodge its claim.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed is one without jurisdiction. Even much earlier, the order was passed under Sec. 7(A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 that the order has become final followed by the consequential proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Though on an earlier occasion, this Court declined to entertain the Civil Revision petition filed in C.R.P.No.3758 of 2019 by order dtd. 21/1/2019, in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in M/s.Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Karnataka and others (Crl.A.No. 9170 of 2019 dtd. 3/12/2019), the writ petition filed is maintainable.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid revision binds the petitioner. There is an alternative remedy available before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal(NCLAT). There is nothing wrong in the order impugned passed in view of the non obstante clause contained under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal rightly rejected the application filed and, therefore, the petitioner will have to be directed to file the claim petition.