9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 343 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyFresh claim after approval of resolution plan - state electricity distribution company - Arrears against the Corporate Debtor/Applicant - Resolution plan was already passed and all assets were taken over - HELD THAT - The Applicant has successfully taken over the assets and operations of the Corporate Debtor by effectively complying with the Resolution Plan. Thus, only the name of the Corporate Debtor is retained and whereas the management of the Corporate Debtor is not at all related to the erstwhile management. Therefore, as soon as the Order approving the Resolution Plan was passed by this Tribunal, and the Plan was put into effect, Section 32A of the Code is attracted. Therefore, R1 is barred from raising any arrears against the Corporate Debtor/Applicant at this juncture - constitutional validity of Section 32A has been upheld. Taking into consideration the intent of the insertion of Section 32A, the submission of R1 is against the principles of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Application allowed.
Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the application. 2. Applicability of the approved Resolution Plan to the Respondent. 3. Legitimacy of the electricity arrears claimed by Respondent No. 1. 4. Refund of the amount paid under protest by the Applicant. 5. Issuance of "No Objection Certificate" and "No Dues Certificate" by Respondent No. 1. Detailed Analysis Jurisdiction of the Tribunal The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction to hear and decide the present application based on its previous order dated October 14, 2019, which approved the Resolution Plan of the Applicant. The Tribunal emphasized that it has the authority to adjudicate matters related to the implementation of the Resolution Plan. Applicability of the Approved Resolution Plan to the Respondent The Tribunal highlighted that the Resolution Plan, once approved, is binding on all stakeholders, including creditors like Respondent No. 1 (MSEDCL). The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, which stated that "a successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with undecided claims after the resolution plan being submitted by him." This principle was reinforced by the Bombay High Court in GGS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, which observed that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code have an overriding effect, making the Resolution Plan binding on all creditors, including government authorities. Legitimacy of the Electricity Arrears Claimed by Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 1 claimed arrears amounting to ?2,16,847 for Additional Energy Charges (AEC) applicable from August 2013 to January 2014. The Tribunal noted that these charges were not raised during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and were not included in the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal emphasized that any claims not lodged during the CIRP cannot be added post-approval of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal also noted that Respondent No. 1 had issued a "No Dues Certificate" on March 11, 2015, which further invalidated the claim for arrears. Refund of the Amount Paid Under Protest by the Applicant The Tribunal directed Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of ?2,17,000 paid under protest by the Applicant. The Tribunal ruled that this amount should be credited to the bank account of Bhadrashree Steel & Power Ltd. or alternatively adjusted against future bills. This decision was based on the principle that the Applicant should not be liable for dues arising from the actions or inactions of the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor. Issuance of "No Objection Certificate" and "No Dues Certificate" by Respondent No. 1 The Tribunal directed Respondent No. 1 to issue a fresh "No Objection Certificate" and "No Dues Certificate" in favor of Ambey Iron Pvt. Ltd. This direction was given to ensure that the Applicant could operate the unit without any hindrance, thus facilitating the revival of the Corporate Debtor as envisaged in the Resolution Plan. Conclusion The Tribunal allowed the application filed by the Applicant, directing Respondent No. 1 to credit the amount paid under protest and issue the necessary certificates. The Tribunal's decision reinforced the binding nature of the Resolution Plan on all stakeholders and protected the interests of the Resolution Applicant from undisclosed claims arising post-approval of the Resolution Plan.
|
