WP/19756/2026 of TRANSSTROY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA on 20 September 2026

1. TRANSSTROY (IND provisions of the Compan 2F, 2nd Floor, Century 600018, represented by

1. UNION OF INDIA, rep and Employment, New D

2. The Central Providen Organisation, New Delhi

3. The Regional Providen Organisation, 3-4-763, 500027.

4. The Regional Provide Organisation, 3-4-763, 500027. E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 202 PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL T PETITION NO: 19756 OF 2026 IA) LIMITED, A Company incorpor nies Act, 1956 having its Corporate O Plaza, 560-562, Anna Salai, Teynam its authorised signatory, Aditya V V. AND presented by its chief secretary. Mi Delhi-110001 nt Fund Commissioner, Employees' -110001 nt Fund Commissioner1, Employees' Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura nt Fund Commissionerll, Employees' Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura DESH

LAPATI rated under the Office at 2C and mpet, Chennai - ...Petitioner nistry of Labour Provident Fund Provident Fund a, Hyderabad - Provident Fund a, Hyderabad - ...Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Show Cause Notice bearing No. TS/RO/HYD-II/53540/R Cell/51601/2024- 25/86 dated 30.04.2024 issued by the 4th Respondent under Sections 8B to 8G read with Section 17B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, particularly Sections 35, 53 and 238/readi With the Liquidation Process Regulations and the order of the Hon'ble NCLT approving the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going Mi) concern, violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to restore/unblock the EPF Code AP/HYD/53540 together with the Unified Portal access pertaining to Transstroy (India) Limited, without insisting upon payment of provident fund dues relating to the period prior to acquisition of the Corporate Debtor by the Petitioner under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and pass dispense with filing of Certified Copy of the Show Cause Notice bearing No. TS/RO/HYD-II/53540/R Cell/51601./2024-25/86 dated 30.04.2024 issued by the 4th Respondent under Sections 8B to 8G read with Section 17B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and pass direct the respondents to restore and permit operation of the EPF establishment pertaining to Transstroy (India) Limited in favour of the Petitioner without insisting upon payment of provident fund liabilities relating to the period prior to acquisition of the Corporate Debtor, pending disposal of this Writ Petition and to pass direct the respondents to consider the Petitioners representation dated 01.08.2025, pending disposal of this Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondents: T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) Counsel for the Respondents: P PADMAVATHI (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following order:

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the show cause notice dated 30.04.2024 issued by respondent No.4 under Sections 8B to 8G read with Section 17B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

2. Heard Sri T.V.P. Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. P. Padmavathi, learned Central Government Counsel, and Sri T. Balaji, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner- company-Transstroy (India) Limited, was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, ‘the IBC’). Upon failure of the resolution process, the National Company Law Tribunal ordered liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and appointed a Liquidator to conduct the liquidation proceedings. He further submitted that pursuant to the auction conducted by the Liquidator, the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder and paid the entire sale consideration. Thereafter, the NCLT, by order dated 26.10.2022, allowed the application filed by the Liquidator and granted the reliefs, concessions and relaxations sought by the successful bidder. Consequent thereto, the Liquidator executed and issued the Sale Certificate dated 31.10.2022 in favour of the petitioner. He further contended that, notwithstanding the aforesaid orders passed by the NCLT and the acquisition of the Corporate Debtor by the petitioner pursuant to the liquidation proceedings, the respondents invoked Section 17B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and sought to recover provident fund dues, damages and interest pertaining to the period from 2011 to 2019, i.e., much prior to acquisition of the Corporate Debtor by the petitioner and accordingly issued show cause notice dated 30.04.2024, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 20.05.2024. However, the said reply has not been considered and no reasoned order has been passed thereon. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 01.08.2025 before respondent No.3 seeking restoration/unlocking of the existing PF registration and addressed an e-mail dated 02.08.2025 to respondent No.4 requesting intervention in the matter. However, the respondents are insisting upon discharge of liabilities relating to the period preceding the acquisition and have thereby disabled the petitioner company from operating the EPF establishment. Hence, prayed to direct the respondents to restore/unlock the EPF code without insisting upon payment of provident fund dues relating to the period prior to acquisition of the Corporate Debtor by the petitioner under the IBC. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Others1.

1 AIR Online 2021 SC 196

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents raised an objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction, contending that the petitioner-company is situated at Chennai and that the insolvency proceedings were dealt with by the NCLT, Hyderabad Bench. He further contended that the writ petition has become infructuous in view of an order passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, a copy of which was placed before the Court by serving a copy on learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Section 7A order relied upon by the respondents pertains to the year 2022 and is not relatable to the impugned show cause notice dated 30.04.2024. Therefore, the said order cannot render the present writ petition infructuous.

6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner has placed on record the Sale Certificate dated 31.10.2022, which discloses the registered address of the petitioner-company at 5-91-25, 4th Line, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Further, the insolvency proceedings in relation to the Corporate Debtor were dealt with by the competent National Company Law Tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter. In view of the above, the contention of learned standing counsel that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable.

8. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the respondents can, after the completion of the liquidation process and acquisition of the Corporate Debtor by the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by the NCLT, seek to enforce against the petitioner liabilities pertaining to the period prior to such acquisition.

9. In Ghanashyam Mishra’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“95(i) Once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan”

Though the present case arises out of a liquidation sale rather than a resolution plan simplicitor, the petitioner’s acquisition of the Corporate Debtor has admittedly taken place pursuant to the liquidation proceedings conducted under the IBC, followed by the order dated 26.10.2022 of the NCLT granting the reliefs, concessions and relaxations sought by the successful bidder and the consequential Sale Certificate dated 31.10.2022. Therefore, once the competent NCLT has passed orders governing the acquisition and has granted the reliefs and concessions in favour of the successful bidder, the statutory authorities cannot, without examining the effect and scope of the said orders, proceed on the premise that the petitioner has automatically assumed all pre-acquisition liabilities of the Corporate Debtor. In the present case, the impugned show cause notice dated 30.04.2024 seeks to proceed against the petitioner in respect of provident fund liabilities, damages and interest relating to the period from 2011 to 2019, whereas the petitioner acquired the Corporate Debtor only pursuant to the liquidation process and the Sale Certificate dated 31.10.2022.

10. Further, the Section 7A order relied upon by the respondents, as submitted by the petitioner, pertains to the year 2022 and is not shown to be an order arising out of the impugned show cause notice dated 30.04.2024. Therefore, the mere existence of such order cannot, by itself, render the present writ petition infructuous. As the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision rendered by by the Apex Court referred supra, no counter is required to be invited.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the NCLT and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra (referred supra), this Court is inclined to pass the following order:

“The impugned show cause notice dated 30.04.2024 issued by respondent No.4, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed not to insist upon payment of the aforesaid pre-acquisition dues from the petitioner, subject to the terms of the order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the NCLT and the Sale Certificate dated 31.10.2022.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 21.09.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION No.19756 of 2026 Dated : 21.09.2026

MP