The NCLAT upheld that Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel ...

Power Companies Must Pay Fuel Surcharges Despite Resolution Plan as They Are Not Pre-Insolvency Liabilities

March 18, 2025

Case Laws IBC AT

The NCLAT upheld that Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel Surcharge (SFS) are statutory charges that become due only upon billing, and cannot be considered pre-insolvency liabilities extinguishable under a resolution plan. These charges, arising from variations in power purchase costs and Supreme Court decisions on change in law, are recovered in installments as mandated by RERC. The Tribunal found no conflict between the Electricity Act and IBC, applying harmonious construction between the statutes. The appellant's contention that Section 238 of IBC overrides the Electricity Act was rejected as no specific conflicting provision was identified. The appellant must pay outstanding FS and SFS within 60 days or face penalties under the Electricity Act.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The NCLAT upheld that Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel ...

Power Companies Must Pay Fuel Surcharges Despite Resolution Plan as They Are Not Pre-Insolvency Liabilities

March 18, 2025

Case Laws IBC AT

You may also like:

The case pertains to the extinguishment of claims under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, after the acceptance of the...

NCLAT dismissed an appeal concerning pre-CIRP electricity dues, affirming NCLT's jurisdiction over post-resolution plan disputes under IBC Section 60(5). The Tribunal...

Successful Resolution Applicant paid pre-CIRP electricity dues under protest to Respondent for restoring Corporate Debtor's electricity connection to revive operations...

The ITAT Chandigarh addressed the validity of income tax proceedings against a dissolved/insolvent company. The tribunal held that under Section 31 of the Insolvency and...

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant did not violate any provisions of law, including Regulation 37(ba)...

Direction to COC to consider ineligibility of 3rd Respondent under Section 29A of I&B Code - as per the Provisions of Law, the COC has power to take a decision with...

This case deals with the extinguishment of demands due to the non-filing of claims by the revenue during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the...

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the appeals filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing lenders to release Non-Fund...

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that the Resolution Plan must provide for payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity dues in accordance with Section...

Resolution plan approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 97.54% vote share. Commercial wisdom of CoC in approving resolution plan not to be lightly interfered with....

Non-compliance with submission of Performance Bank Guarantee by the Appellant as per the Request for Resolution Plan's clause obliging the Resolution Applicant to...

HC affirmed tax authority's adjustment of AY 2010-11 refund against pre-existing tax liabilities of corporate debtor. Resolution applicant's claim to refund rejected on...

Once the resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, any outstanding claims, including those under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act for...

Once a resolution plan is approved u/s 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), only the debts specified in the resolution plan remain payable. This...

The High Court held that once a resolution plan is approved u/s 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), only the debts specified in the resolution plan...

Quick Updates: