Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 704 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyRecovery of past dues of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) - MSEDCL’s role and standing within the framework of the Resolution Plan - statutory creditor or not - stand that MSEDCL is that unless its past dues are cleared, it cannot and will not provide a new connection to NRC Ltd at its units. Have its claims for past dues been written off or reduced upon the sanction of the Resolution Plan? - Can these past dues be said to have been extinguished upon approval of the Resolution Plan? - Is it permissible for MSEDCL, whatever its description as a creditor to whom amounts are owed, to stand outside the Resolution Plan and raise its demands? HELD THAT:- Two things are apparent. MSEDCL’s demands are not person- or entity-specific. If one entity applies for a connection and then leaves the premises to which the connection provided, MSEDCL is not required to follow that entity to whatever location it chooses to migrate. It can recover from the successor. But it is equally clear, at least at this stage, that MSEDCL has no enforceable charge in specie over the premises themselves, and to which the connection is given. What the Regulation says is that whoever succeeds to the use of an enjoyment of the premises, to get the benefit of the electricity connection, is liable to pay MSEDCL dues. That is all that Regulation 12.5 says. It does not create a statutory charge and MSEDCL cannot under that Regulation, for example, recover dues by purporting to attach or sell the premises to which the connection is given - But this Regulation does not permit MSEDCL to stand outside an approved Resolution Plan for the simple reason that its claim is for past dues, and these have been dealt with by the Resolution Plan. There is a completely unexplained failure on MSEDCL’s part to lodge its claim within the RP in time. It really had to do very little except lodge its claim. There is the Supreme Court finding in Ghanashyam Mishra [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] regarding other claims including from tax authorities standing extinguished after the 2019 amendment. That simply cannot be ignored. The only course that is available in these circumstances, is to direct MSEDCL to process the NRC Ltd’s application for the connection at the four villages without insisting on payment of the previous demand for past arrears, but on the clear understanding that this creates no equities in favour of NRC Ltd in regard to MSEDCL demand. Second, that if NRC Ltd pursues its application for a connection at the four villages, it does so on the footing that that application will be processed, and the connection provided by MSEDCL subject to the outcome of this Petition. This must necessarily be so. The applications by NRC Ltd for the reconnection and the new connection will be processed by MSEDCL on this basis. For its own internal records and even otherwise MSEDCL must be permitted to continue to show the amount of arrears and any claim for interest in the bills. This is needed for MSEDCL book keeping purposes and to safeguard against a possible future argument that MSEDCL’s claim is barred by limitation etc. - MSEDCL cannot, therefore, either refuse the new connection/restoration, nor disconnect until further orders only on the basis that its past dues have not been paid.
|