9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 869 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyDirection to Respondents to keep the payment of the electricity bills of the Applicant in abeyance till either the (i) end of the moratorium period of the Applicant's insolvency proceedings as per the Hon'ble NCLT's Order dated 09.04.2019, or (ii) final disposal of the Writ Petition No. 38107 of 2014, whichever is earlier - Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute the Applicant / Corporate Debtor already filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court bearing Writ Petition No. 38107/2014. Thus already the Corporate Debtor moved the Hon'ble High Court even before CIRP started against Corporate Debtor. Having filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court and when matter is sub-judice, it is not open to the Applicant / Corporate Debtor to move the Tribunal again on the same issue. On this ground, the present applicable is liable to be dismissed. It is also true that the benefit if any given to the Corporate Debtor by the Government then suitable deposit to be made with the distribution company / R3 by the State Government concerned for extending the benefit. Till date, no such deposit is made with the Distribution Company. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority cannot give any direction to the 3rd Respondent to extend a concession to the Applicant / Corporate Debtor. The issue whether the Applicant / Corporate Debtor is entitled for the concessions as per the policy and as per the G.O. referred to is a matter yet to be determined in the writ petition filed by the Corporate Debtor against the Government - the relief prayed by the Applicant to keep the monthly bills in abeyance cannot be granted since Applicant is bound to pay electricity charges raised for the consumption of electricity during CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority cannot prevent the distributing company from collecting electricity charges from the Corporate Debtor during CIRP. The relief sought is against the provisions of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 2. Entitlement of the Corporate Debtor to electricity bill reimbursements. 3. Status of the writ petition before the High Court. 4. Applicability of the moratorium period on electricity bill payments. 5. Legal obligations of the Respondent to provide concessions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal addressed the contention of the Respondent that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application since the subject matter was already pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana. The Tribunal concurred with this argument, noting that the Corporate Debtor had already filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 38107/2014) prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it could not adjudicate on the same issue that was sub-judice before the High Court. 2. Entitlement of the Corporate Debtor to Electricity Bill Reimbursements: The Corporate Debtor claimed entitlement to reimbursements amounting to ?10,30,60,558/- for power costs incurred from 2009-10 to 2013-14, based on the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy (IIPP) and subsequent government orders. The Respondent countered that any such reimbursement or concession required approval from the Electricity Regulatory Commission and that no advance deposit had been made by the State Government to facilitate this. The Tribunal acknowledged that the entitlement to these concessions was a matter pending determination in the writ petition filed by the Corporate Debtor. 3. Status of the Writ Petition Before the High Court: The Tribunal noted that the writ petition filed by the Corporate Debtor was still pending before the High Court of Telangana. The Tribunal emphasized that since the matter was sub-judice, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate on the same issue. The Tribunal directed the Corporate Debtor to seek relief from the High Court regarding the reimbursement and concessions. 4. Applicability of the Moratorium Period on Electricity Bill Payments: The Corporate Debtor requested that the payment of electricity bills be kept in abeyance until the end of the moratorium period of the CIRP or the final disposal of the writ petition. The Tribunal referred to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which mandate that essential services should not be terminated during the moratorium period. However, the Tribunal clarified that this did not exempt the Corporate Debtor from paying for the electricity consumed during the CIRP. The Tribunal held that the Corporate Debtor was bound to pay the electricity charges and that the relief sought was contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 5. Legal Obligations of the Respondent to Provide Concessions: The Tribunal examined the Respondent's argument that any concession or subsidy required prior approval and advance payment from the State Government. The Tribunal agreed with this position, noting that no such deposit had been made by the State Government to the distribution company. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it could not direct the Respondent to extend the requested concessions to the Corporate Debtor. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter already pending before the High Court, and that the Corporate Debtor was obligated to pay electricity charges during the CIRP. The Tribunal advised the Corporate Debtor to seek appropriate relief from the High Court regarding the reimbursement and concessions.
|
