9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 207 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyWhether a public sector, i.e., State Government undertaking like appellant-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) is not made to fund the restructuring proposal of Lavasa Corporation Limited? - HELD THAT - Mr. Sancheti states that during a meeting held on 22.4.2022, COC has decided not to pay anything more to MSEDCL but at the same time, Mr. Sancheti assures this Court that he will try his best to make an effort to speak to members of the COC and find out if they would be willing to change or alter the decision that they have taken on 22.04.2022. Mr. Sancheti states that COC comprises of 18 members and it would take some time to hold the meeting - In today s time and age of video conferencing one can hold meeting on emergency basis over video conferencing if they are unable to congregate at one place. COC is directed to hold a meeting not later than 9.00 a.m. on 2.5.2022 and give instructions to Mr. Sancheti. No further time will be given to COC on next date and this Court shall proceed to hear the matter and pass such orders as it deems fit. Chitra Sonawane. In reference to the request by Mr. Sancheti, matter be listed on board at 3.30 p.m. on 2.05.2022.
Issues:
1. Whether a public sector undertaking should be made to fund the restructuring proposal of a company undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process. 2. Determining the payment of dues to the public sector undertaking for power supply. 3. The role of the Committee of Creditors (COC) in deciding the payment to the public sector undertaking. 4. Ensuring timely payment to the public sector undertaking to avoid adverse effects on power supply in the region. 5. Addressing the decision of the COC not to pay additional dues to the public sector undertaking and the need for reconsideration. 6. Amendment of the petition to include the Committee of Creditors as a respondent. Analysis: 1. The High Court deliberated on whether a public sector undertaking, specifically the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), should be compelled to finance the restructuring proposal of Lavasa Corporation Limited during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The Court raised concerns about the implications of using public funds for this purpose, particularly given MSEDCL's status as a State Government undertaking. 2. The Court examined the issue of payment of dues to MSEDCL for power supply, both pre and post the initiation of CIRP. While MSEDCL was being paid a partial amount to maintain power supply to Lavasa Corporation, uncertainties remained regarding the full settlement of outstanding bills. The Resolution Professional assured that MSEDCL would be paid its remaining dues on a priority basis under the resolution plan, although the exact timeline for payment was unclear. 3. The role of the Committee of Creditors (COC) in determining the payment to MSEDCL was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Court highlighted that the COC, represented by its legal counsel, would primarily benefit from the sale proceeds of Lavasa Corporation, while expecting MSEDCL to continue supplying electricity on credit using public funds. This raised questions about fairness and the allocation of resources in the resolution process. 4. Recognizing the potential impact on power supply in Maharashtra if MSEDCL faced financial losses, the Court emphasized the importance of ensuring timely payment to MSEDCL to prevent disruptions in electricity provision to consumers. The Court suggested that the COC should prioritize settling MSEDCL's dues from the sale proceeds to mitigate any adverse effects on the public. 5. The Court addressed the decision of the COC not to pay additional dues to MSEDCL post the CIRP initiation. Despite the COC's stance during a meeting, the Court directed the COC to reconsider its decision and convene a meeting promptly to review the payment terms to MSEDCL. The Court emphasized the urgency of the matter and set a deadline for the COC to provide instructions. 6. Lastly, the Court allowed the amendment of the petition to include the Committee of Creditors as a respondent, acknowledging the importance of their involvement in the legal proceedings. The Court granted leave to amend the petition and instructed the necessary updates to be completed within a specified timeline to ensure all relevant parties were properly represented in the case.
|
