Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases IBC IBC + AT IBC - 2024 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (11) TMI 671 - AT - IBC


Issues Involved:

1. Refund of pre-CIRP electricity dues paid under protest by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
2. Applicability of the Ghanashyam Mishra judgment regarding extinguishment of claims not part of the Resolution Plan.
3. Jurisdiction of NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) concerning disputes related to the insolvency resolution process.
4. The obligation of power distribution companies to restore electricity without insisting on pre-CIRP dues.
5. The consequences of a creditor's failure to file claims during the CIRP.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund of Pre-CIRP Electricity Dues:
The Appellate Tribunal examined the issue of whether the SRA was entitled to a refund of Rs.2,11,42,540/- paid under protest to the Respondent for pre-CIRP electricity dues. The Tribunal noted that the payment was made under protest and under the protection of the NCLT order, as the electricity connection was crucial for the revival of the Corporate Debtor's operations. The Tribunal concluded that the claim for a refund was valid as it related to the revival of the Corporate Debtor in terms of the Resolution Plan and the Insolvency Resolution Process.

2. Applicability of the Ghanashyam Mishra Judgment:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, which held that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. This judgment was pivotal in determining that the Respondent's claim for pre-CIRP dues was extinguished, as it was not included in the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal emphasized that the SRA cannot be burdened with claims not part of the approved plan, aligning with the principle that the Corporate Debtor must start with a clean slate post-resolution.

3. Jurisdiction Under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC:
The Tribunal addressed whether the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, which covers questions of priorities or law/facts related to insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal found that the issue of refunding pre-CIRP dues was intrinsically linked to the insolvency resolution process, thereby falling within the NCLT's jurisdiction.

4. Obligation of Power Distribution Companies:
Citing precedents such as Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Ltd and Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, the Tribunal held that power distribution companies cannot insist on the payment of arrears as a precondition for restoring electricity. This principle was applied to the present case, reinforcing the SRA's position that the Respondent's demand for pre-CIRP dues was unjustified.

5. Consequences of Creditor's Failure to File Claims:
The Tribunal criticized the Respondent for failing to file a claim during the CIRP, noting that had it done so, it would have received a significantly lower amount as an operational creditor. The Tribunal highlighted that the Respondent's attempt to recover pre-CIRP dues post-resolution plan approval was an attempt to benefit from its own default, which was impermissible under the IBC framework.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Respondent to refund the amount paid by the SRA within six weeks. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the principles laid down in the Ghanashyam Mishra judgment and the IBC's objective of providing a clean slate to resolution applicants.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates