9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lectricity bills incurred by CD during the moratorium period were paid and the Appellant after the commencement of liquidation unilaterally adjusted the outstanding bills. There are no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. - Company Appeal ( AT ) ( CH ) ( Ins ) No. 104 of 2023 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2023 - [ Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Shreesha Merla ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. B Dhanaraj , Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. E Om Praskash , Sr. Adv For Mr. Imayavaramban ORDER Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain : This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Debtor deposited a security deposit of Rs. 4,50,000/- and subsequently, additional renewal agreements were executed, increasing the total security deposit of Rs. 32,24,100/-. It is also alleged that electricity connection was disconnected on 13.01.2020 due to non-payment of CC charges. According to the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor requested on 20.01.2020 to adjust the dues from the refundable deposit of Rs. 32,24,100/- and accordingly, the superintending engineer addressed a letter on 11.02.2020 proposing the adjustment of excess security deposit towards the consumption charges. 6. On the other hand, the case set up by the Respondent is that during the CIRP when the production became very low due to lack of orders, the RP requeste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake a claim to him for the arrears due from the Corporate Debtor. 8. Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the amount of security deposit has been adjusted against the arrears on the request made by the IRP on 20.01.2020. Whereas Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that on the next date i.e. 21.01.2020 the liquidation order was passed and the adjustment has been made by the Appellant on 24.07.2020, during the pendency of the liquidation proceedings. 9. We have heard Counsel for the parties and examined the available record from which we have found that firstly the Appellant did not file any claim and secondly, it did not choose to appear to contest the application. After the liquidation order was passed on 21.01.2020, all tan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
