9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et, we may advert to the order dated 27.11.2019 which has been impugned in the present proceeding. It may be mentioned that the corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against the corporate debtor i.e., respondent No.3 vide order dated 23.05.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Respondent No.2 was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional, which was subsequently confirmed on 08.06.2019 by the Adjudicating Authority. Respondent No.2, being the Resolution Professional, filed an Interlocutory Application in CP(IB).No.678/7/HDB/2018 i.e., the petition whereby corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (briefly, 'IBC' hereinafter) seeking certain directions against the petitioners herein. The Interlocutory Application was registered as I.A.No.740 of 2019. Reliefs prayed for by the Resolution Professional in the said Interlocutory Application were as follows:- "i. To direct the Respondents to immediately release the pending payments with respect to bills dated 11 July 2019 at the rate of Rs.3.29/KwH amounting to Rs.23,91,37,582/- pending adjudication of the revised rate of Rs.3.93/KwH b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being taken. Writ petitioners were not liable to pay the amount of Rs.23,91,37,582/- as claimed. Additionally, it was contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application; IBC is not intended to be a substitute for a regulatory forum; therefore the dispute should be left to the Regulatory Commission to decide. 6. After considering the rival pleadings and submissions made, Tribunal passed the order dated 27.11.2019 holding as follows:- "4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. It is the case of the Applicant that the Corporate Debtor has supplied. power to the Respondents herein for which the Respondents were liable to pay an amount of Rs.28,56,56,746/-. The Respondents have raised the question of locus standi of the Applicant and have also contended that the liability of the Respondents towards the Corporate Debtor is to the extent of Rs.7.45 Crore only and not as per the claim made by the Applicant. 6. As regards the locus of the Applicant, suffice it to say that the Applicant being the RP appointed for the Corporate Debtor by this Adjudicating Authority as per the provisions of IBC, 2016 is mandated to manage the operations of the Corporate De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and circumstances of Mobilox (supra). 9. The IA No.740/2019 is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs." 7. Thus the Tribunal held that respondent No.2 i.e., the applicant being the Resolution Professional of respondent No.3 (corporate debtor) had the mandate to manage the affairs of respondent No.3 and is entitled to exercise all powers and perform all duties as are vested with the Resolution Professional in terms of IBC. Resolution Professional is duty bound to preserve and protect the assets of respondent No.3 including the business operations of respondent No.3. 8. Adverting to the IBC, Tribunal observed that objective of it is to provide a specific law relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons in a time bound manner for maximisation of the value of assets of such persons and to promote entrepreneurship etc. In the circumstances, Tribunal directed the writ petitioners that pending final approval of the Regulatory Commission, payments be made as per the mutually agreed terms in respect of power purchase bills raised by respondent No.3 on actual user basis so as not to adversely effect the insolvency resolution process of resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the domain of the Regulatory Commission. Being the Resolution Professional, respondent No.2 had filed the Interlocutory Application before the Tribunal complaining that dues for supply of electricity as per tariff admitted by the parties were not being settled thereby adversely effecting the financial status of the corporate debtor i.e., respondent No.3. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. 13.1. In so far the impugned order is concerned, he submits that the order impugned is an appealable one under Section 61 of IBC. However, the period of filing appeal i.e., 30 days extendable by another 15 days is long over. Now that the limitation period for filing appeal or even the extended period of limitation is over, it is not open for the petitioners to file the writ petition as a substitute for appeal. In this connection, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) 19 SCC 681 to contend that when the writ petitioners choose to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period, High Court can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Karnataka. Though a notice for premature termination of lease was issued on the allegation of violation of statutory provisions, no order of termination was passed till the date of initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process. Interim Resolution Professional filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking a declaration that the mining lease should be deemed to be valid till expiry of its original period. 18. During the pendency of the writ petition, Government of Karnataka passed an order rejecting the proposal for deemed extension. In view of such order, Interim Resolution Professional withdrew the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. But instead of filing a fresh writ petition, Resolution Professional moved an Interlocutory Application before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (briefly, 'the NCLT' hereinafter) for setting aside the order of the Government of Karnataka and seeking a declaration that the lease should be deemed to be valid up to the original date. This was allowed by the NCLT directing the Government of Karnataka to execute supplemental lease deed in favour of the corporate debtor for the remaining period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
