section 35 - The Legal Chamber

Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders

30Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the priority of charges between the EPFO, under Section 11(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, and secured creditors, including Axis Bank, under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The core legal issue for fresh adjudication is the conflict between the statutory first charge of EPFO dues and the primacy claimed by secured creditors. Facts Of The Case: M/s Acropetal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. defaulted on its Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) dues from July 2013. The EPFO determined a liability and, upon learning the company's properties were to be auctioned by various banks, invoked its priority under the EPF Act. The EPFO specifically asserted a first charge over the 'Attibele property' being auctioned by Axis B...

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...

Supreme Court Overrules Precedent on Power of Attorney Validity in Property Sales

The Supreme Court examined the validity of documents executed by a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder under the Registration Act, 1908. It held that a PoA holder remains an agent, not an "executant" under Section 32(a), and must comply with Sections 32(c), 33, 34, and 35 for authentication. The court disagreed with the earlier Rajni Tandon ruling, emphasizing that a PoA holder cannot bypass statutory scrutiny while executing or presenting documents for registration. The issue was referred to a larger bench for clarity. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around the validity of an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 15.10.1990, allegedly executed by Ranveer Singh and his wife, Gyanu Bai, in favor of their tenant, G. Rajender Kumar. Using this GPA, Rajender Kumar executed three ...