DYNAQUIP ENGINEERS REPRESENTED BY IT PARTNER PUSHKAR R. KOTNIS., v. THE REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER AND ANR.,
Liability of Auction Purchaser for Provident Fund Dues: Interpretation of Contractual Terms and Section 17-B of the EPF Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:2570
Decision Date: 22-12-2025
List of Laws
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; Section 17-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; Partnership Act
- Facts: M/s Dynaquip Engineers, a partnership firm, purchased assets of M/s Pushparti Packs Pvt. Ltd. in a court auction. The auction terms stipulated that the purchaser would be liable to clear all statutory dues. The Regional P.F. Commissioner determined that Dynaquip Engineers owed Rs. 6,65,173/- towards the provident fund dues of Pushparti Packs Pvt. Ltd. Dynaquip Engineers challenged this order, arguing that the dues pertained to the previous owner, the transfer was not voluntary, and the demand was barred by delay.
- Procedural Posture: Dynaquip Engineers filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner/Recovery Officer.
- Issue: Is M/s Dynaquip Engineers, as an auction purchaser, liable to pay the provident fund dues of the previous owner, M/s Pushparti Packs Pvt. Ltd., under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, specifically considering the contractual terms of the auction and Section 17-B of the Act?
- Holding: Yes, M/s Dynaquip Engineers is liable to pay the provident fund dues of the previous owner, M/s Pushparti Packs Pvt. Ltd., up to the value of the assets obtained by them in the auction. The writ petition is dismissed.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the petitioner voluntarily agreed to the contractual terms of the auction, which explicitly stated that the purchaser would be liable for all statutory dues. The Court distinguished the case from Vibhu Drinks Pvt. Ltd., where the Official Liquidator had undertaken to pay all dues. The Court also held that Section 17-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, applies, making the transferee liable for dues up to the date of transfer, limited to the value of the assets transferred. The court also rejected the argument of delay and laches, noting the absence of any limitation period under the Act and the lack of prejudice pleaded by the petitioner. The court stated, "The petitioner is liable, firstly on account of the contractual terms voluntarily agreed to by the petitioner and secondly, even without prejudice, on account of the provisions under Section 17-B of the said Act."
🔒 For Members Only