9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 425 - AT - IBCJurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority to entertain the Application relting to refund of pre-CIRP dues - Adjudicating Authority had become quorum non-judice - extinguishment of claims of the Appellant for pre-CIRP dues upon the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority - Estoppel from claiming a refund of the amount paid towards pre-CIRP dues. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority to entertain the Application relting to refund of pre-CIRP dues - HELD THAT - The approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority dated 21.09.2021 and the claim which was filed by the Appellant in the CIRP. The correspondence entered between the Parties was in reference to the approval of the Resolution Plan and payment of the amount which was due to the Appellant as per the Resolution Plan with a prayer to resumption of supply. Section 60(5) clearly indicates that under Section 60(5)(c) any question arising out of or in relation to the Insolvency Resolution or Liquidation proceeding of the Corporate Debtor is covered by the said definition. On looking into the reliefs and the concessions granted by the Order dated 21.09.2021 and the letter given by the Corporate Debtor on 29.10.2021 offering to make payment under the Resolution Plan and seeking restoration of supply the said request clearly fell within Section 60(5)(c) - The NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Respondent No.1 concerning the refund of pre-CIRP dues and compliance with the Resolution Plan. Extinguishment of claims of the Appellant for pre-CIRP dues upon the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT - The law is well settled that by approval of the Resolution Plan all dues and claims of pre-CIRP stand extinguished. In the present case the DVC has filed its claim in the CIRP of 2, 32, 13, 387/- for which an amount of 4, 64, 003/- was allocated for the Resolution Plan. Judgment of this Tribunal relied by the Respondent in the matter of Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Kharkia Steels Pvt. Ltd. Ors. 2022 (3) TMI 821 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI as well as the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Ors. 2023 (7) TMI 831 - SUPREME COURT as well as the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra Sons Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT clearly lays down that all claims after approval of the Plan stands extinguished. The claims of the Appellant for pre-CIRP dues were extinguished upon the approval of the Resolution Plan and the Appellant was not entitled to claim any additional pre-CIRP dues. Estoppel from claiming a refund of the amount paid towards pre-CIRP dues - HELD THAT - The correspondence entered between the Parties clearly indicates that Respondent No.1 has offered to make the payment which was due as per the Plan. However the Respondent itself has asked the Appellant to give the details of the payment which are required to be paid. Vide letter dated 07.12.2021 in response to which communication dated 07.12.2021 was issued. The Appellant has sought for claims that were due before the CIRP period and during the CIRP period as well. No issue can be raised regarding any claim prior to CIRP period since the claim said after approval of the Resolution Plan and payment of amount under the Plan to the Appellant stood extinguished. It is however relevant to notice that no bifurcation and details have been given as to what was the claim prior to CIRP period and what was the claim subsequent to the CIRP period as was communicated by the Appellant vide letter dated 07.12.2021. On the record there are also no details to come to the conclusion that how much amount as communicated in letter dated 07.12.2021 was during the CIRP period and what was the amount prior to CIRP period. The Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be faulted insofar as is directed for refund of the amount which was claimed by the Appellant of pre-CIRP period. The Respondent No.1 was not estopped from claiming a refund of pre-CIRP dues as the payments were made under duress to ensure the resumption of electricity supply. Conclusion - i) The NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Respondent No.1 concerning the refund of pre-CIRP dues and compliance with the Resolution Plan. ii) The claims of the Appellant for pre-CIRP dues were extinguished upon the approval of the Resolution Plan and the Appellant was not entitled to claim any additional pre-CIRP dues. iii) The Respondent No.1 was not estopped from claiming a refund of pre-CIRP dues as the payments were made under duress to ensure the resumption of electricity supply. iv) The Appellant is not entitled for recovering any dues from the Respondent which relate to pre-CIRP period with regard to which claim was filed by the Appellant and was dealt in the Resolution Plan approved on 21.09.2021. Appeal disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in the judgment include: 1. Whether the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Respondent No.1 concerning the refund of pre-CIRP dues and compliance with the Resolution Plan. 2. Whether the claims of the Appellant for pre-CIRP dues were extinguished upon the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. 3. Whether the Respondent No.1, having entered into a new Power Purchase Agreement and paid the outstanding dues, is estopped from claiming a refund of the amount paid towards pre-CIRP dues. 4. Whether the Appellant was entitled to recover any dues from the Respondent No.1 for the pre-CIRP period, and if so, whether the refund directed by the Adjudicating Authority was justified. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Jurisdiction of the NCLT The relevant legal framework includes Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which provides the NCLT with jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or any claim made by or against the corporate debtor, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings. The Court interpreted that the NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Respondent No.1 as it related to the implementation of the Resolution Plan approved on 21.09.2021. The request for resumption of power supply and the refund of pre-CIRP dues were considered to fall within the scope of Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC. Extinguishment of Pre-CIRP Dues The Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 'Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.', which held that upon approval of a Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all claims not included in the plan stand extinguished. The Court found that the Appellant's claims for pre-CIRP dues were extinguished upon the approval of the Resolution Plan, which allocated a specific amount to the Appellant. The Appellant was not entitled to claim any additional pre-CIRP dues from the Respondent No.1. Estoppel and New Power Purchase Agreement The Appellant argued that the Respondent No.1 was estopped from claiming a refund because it had voluntarily entered into a new Power Purchase Agreement and made payments. The Court examined the clause in the agreement that stated the Respondent No.1 agreed to accept liabilities that might accrue due to the execution of the agreement, but not those extinguished by the Resolution Plan. The Court concluded that the Respondent No.1 was not estopped from claiming a refund of pre-CIRP dues, as the payments made were under duress to ensure the resumption of electricity supply, which was essential for business operations. Refund of Pre-CIRP Dues The Court found that the Appellant's demand for pre-CIRP dues was illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Adjudicating Authority's direction to refund the amount received for pre-CIRP dues was upheld, but it was clarified that the refund should only pertain to pre-CIRP dues and not to any dues during the CIRP period. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that: 1. The NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Respondent No.1 concerning the refund of pre-CIRP dues and compliance with the Resolution Plan. 2. The claims of the Appellant for pre-CIRP dues were extinguished upon the approval of the Resolution Plan, and the Appellant was not entitled to claim any additional pre-CIRP dues. 3. The Respondent No.1 was not estopped from claiming a refund of pre-CIRP dues, as the payments were made under duress to ensure the resumption of electricity supply. 4. The Appellant was directed to refund the amount received for pre-CIRP dues within 30 days, but the refund was confined to pre-CIRP dues only, and any amount pertaining to dues during the CIRP period was not liable to be refunded. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.
|
