Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 580 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyCIRP - validity of direction to restore the electricity supply to the respondent no. 1 herein (writ petitioner) only on the reconnection charges without insisting upon deposit of its previous claims or past dues of electricity and other charges which had resulted into disconnection - resolution plan already approved - in the resolution plan, the relief relating to grant of power connection was not allowed - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghanashyam Mishra [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] has considered the scope of Section 31(1) of the IBC and has held that once the resolution plan is sanctioned under Section 31(1) of the IBC, the claims provided in the plan will stand frozen and all such claims which are not part of the plan will stand extinguished. In the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited [2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT], Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed that a successful resolution application cannot be faced with undecided claim after the resolution plan is accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up, leading to the uncertainty of amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant. It is undisputed before this Court that the claim of the appellant to recover the earlier dues of about Rs. 25 crores as against the respondent no. 1 does not survive. As per the judicial pronouncement noted on the facts of this case, such a claim extinguishes on approval of resolution plan. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts a duty upon the distribution licensee to supply electricity on request - Having due regard to the provision of Section 43, it is not open to the appellant to contend that though the earlier dues are not recoverable from the respondent no. 1, yet, the appellant will not supply electricity to the respondent. The counsel for respondent no. 1 has made it clear before this Court that it is ready to pay the fresh connection/reconnection charges to the appellant. The right of the appellant to recover the amount which was due prior to the resolution plan had extinguished on the approval of the resolution plan. The appellant is now required to provide the electricity connection to the respondent in terms of the Electricity Act, 2003, hence, learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the writ petition and issuing requisite direction in this regard - Appeal dismissed.
|