Cgit award
Case brief
What is this about?
The tribunal disposed of condonation of delay applications based on moratorium and NCLT orders. In other matters, it dismissed appeals for want of prosecution, limited the right to file replies due to default, and dismissed an impleadment application for a retired lawyer, directing various parties to file replies or produce records.
What did the court decide?
Delay condoned based on moratorium; right to file reply closed; impleadment application dismissed; cases listed for arguments.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, DELHI
D-1/33/2025 & D-1/34/2025 M/s Pooja Marbles vs. APFC Delhi (East).
Present: Sh. Pradeep Asopa and Sh. Ravindra J. Satdeve, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Sh. S.N. Mahanta, Ld. Counsel & Sh. Surinder Kumar, A/R for the Respondent.
Order dated-06.08.2025
ORAL
These are the two appeals filed by the appellant assailing the order passed by the respondent authority u/s 7 A as well as 14B & 7 Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).
The appellant has pressed his application for condonation of delay stating that NCLT vide order dated 04.06.2025 has declared him Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and from that date he had taken the assets and liability of the company. In that order also, it was mentioned that the appellant / SRA had taken the liability of EPF dues. It is further the plea of the appellant that in fact the Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed in this case on 08.06.2020 and the claim have been lodged by the respondent before RP on 30.09.2022. During the proceedings before the RP and NCLT moratorium was in continuance, therefore, there appeals are in limitation.
There is no quarrel of the fact that there was a moratorium in existence from 08.06.2020 till 04.06.2025. If the date is counted from the order passed by NCLT, the appeals are found to be filed within the period of limitation of the Act. Therefore, the applications filed for condonation of delay in both the appeals stand disposed of.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay is permissible given the existence of a moratorium and the appointment of the SRA.
Whether the right to file a reply remains open after the prescribed period and repeated opportunities without explanation.
Whether a retired lawyer with a bar license but no bar council membership can be impleaded as a party in a departmental appeal.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M/s Pooja Marbles
- respondent
APFC Delhi (East)
- petitioner
M/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi
- respondent
RPFC Delhi (South)
- petitioner
M/s Subba Microsystem Ltd.
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court