TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... table deposit to be made with the distribution company / R3 by the State Government concerned for extending the benefit. Till date, no such deposit is made with the Distribution Company. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority cannot give any direction to the 3rd Respondent to extend a concession to the Applicant / Corporate Debtor. The issue whether the Applicant / Corporate Debtor is entitled for the concessions as per the policy and as per the G.O. referred to is a matter yet to be determined in the writ petition filed by the Corporate Debtor against the Government - the relief prayed by the Applicant to keep the monthly bills in abeyance cannot be granted since Applicant is bound to pay electricity charges raised for the consumption of electricity during CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority cannot prevent the distributing company from collecting electricity charges from the Corporate Debtor during CIRP. The relief sought is against the provisions of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Application dismissed. - IA 486 of 2019 in C.P. (IB) No. 43/7/HDB/2018 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2020 - Ratakonda Murali, Member (J) And Narender Kumar Bhola, Member (T) For the Appellant : Naga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises is rented out for conducting various conferences, meetings, conventions, sporting and cultural events etc. D. It is averred the 1st Respondent, in order to promote and encourage the Tourism, Industrial, Infrastructure and Energy Sectors in the State of Andhra Pradesh and to provide additional employment opportunities to the rural population, notified the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2005-2010 ( IIPP ). E. It is also averred the IIPP was brought into effect by the 1st Respondent in order to promote setting up of units in the rural areas of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. To encourage setting up of more units, certain incentives and benefits were granted or extended to these units by the IIPP. F. It is averred the Applicant filed an application on 09.01.2009 to the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh seeking certain concessions and exemptions for its Rural Tourism Destination Project ( Project ). The Applicant's premises is set up in the backward and underdeveloped area in Bommaraspet Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. It is also averred the area in which the Applicant's Premises had been set up, and was being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not responded to the above representation of the Applicant and the Applicant has not received any portion of the reimbursement till date. K. It is averred the Applicant is entitled to an amount of ₹ 10,30,60,558/- which was subject to the final adjudication of the reimbursement by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in W.P. No. 38107 of 2014 as reimbursement for the power cost paid by the Applicant for the period from 2009-10 to 2013-14. L. It is averred the Corporate Debtor has been paying the energy charges at the regular tariffs and also in accordance with the changes in the tariff structure. The Applicant has not received the reimbursement that the Applicant is legally entitled to receive, nor has any amount been set-off in the electricity bills that are being paid by the Applicant on a monthly basis. Neither the 2nd Respondent nor the 3rd Respondent have taken any actions to ensure that the Applicant avails the exemptions and concessions that the Applicant is entitled to avail. M. It is averred despite the Applicant's Project being categorized as an MTP more than 10 years ago, and the Applicant's repeated representations in relation to availing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valent relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality . P. The need for legal protection of the Applicant from such arbitrary (in) actions, a division bench judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. v. Sant Steels Alloys (P) Ltd. Appeal (civil) 1215-1216 of 2001 is relied. Q. It is stated that in Sant Steels case, the Applicants sought a rebate, specifically a hill development rebate of 33.33% from U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. granted to the Applicants vide notifications dated 18.01.1992 and 15.07.1994 by UP Power regarding certain electricity bills. However, the concessions were reduced later from 33.33% to 17% by UP Power. This action of UP Power was challenged as arbitrary and illegal by the Applicants. The general principle of law reiterated in this case is as follows: But after survey of all these cases on the subject, the judicial consensus that emerges is that whenever the State has made a representation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consumes, within the date specified in the Electricity Bills. c. It is averred the Adjudicating Authority does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate or even consider the subject matter of the instant application as the subject matter of the instant application is already pending with Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and therefore lying sub judice in a writ petition filed by the Applicant itself. d. It is averred the Corporate Debtor / M/s. Leo Meridian Infrastructure Projects and Hotels Ltd. had applied and was sanctioned HT power supply for its resort and hotel business situated at Bomarajpeta Village, Shameerpet Mandal on 02.07.2003 under HT Category-II and is presently availing a CMD of 1600 KVA at 33 KV Voltage under the HT Category-II tariff. Further, it is averred the Respondent cannot implement the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 25.02.2009 without the approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission. The 3rd Respondent has to collect the Tariff as approved by the TSERC from all the consumers and has no discretion or power to vary the said tariff in respect of any individual consumer. If the Applicant is entitled to any reimbursement should claim the same fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory Commission, from time to time. Further, it is averred the 3rd Respondent cannot give any concession / rebate in tariff unless the same is approved by the Electricity Regulatory Commission in the form of tariff orders. However, the 3rd Respondent states that it can pass on the reimbursable amount @ 0.75 paisa per unit on the energy charges on receipt of an equivalent amount, if any, from the State Government as per the G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 25.02.2009 by way of adjustment in the Current Consumption charges bills / invoices. i. It is averred the 3rd Respondent had filed its counter affidavit in the said writ petition and thereby entered into the matter before the Hon'ble High Court. Needless to state, the 3rd Respondent had laid out the merits of its stand through its counter affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court and prayed for the dismissal of the said writ petition, with costs and the writ petition is pending for disposal as on date. j. It is averred the Order of the Adjudicating Authority laying out the moratorium period and also that the supply of essential commodities and services should not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the said morator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bommaraspet Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 7. Counsel contended the project set up by the Corporate Debtor is treated as Mega Tourism Project (MTP). The power cost was given @ ₹ 0.75 paise per unit under the IIPP. Counsel for Applicant would contend the Applicant is entitled for reimbursement of an amount of ₹ 10,30,60,558/- and a writ petition is filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana for reimbursement. Counsel contended the Applicant / Corporate Debtor is regularly paying electricity charges. However, Applicant is not receiving the reimbursement nor any setoff is allowed by the Respondents. Therefore, Learned Counsel contended the Electricity Bills to be kept in abeyance either till the date of conclusion of CIRP or till the disposal of the writ petition pending in the Hon'ble High Court. 8. Learned Counsel for 3rd Respondent vehemently opposed the application and contended this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the subject matter of this application is already pending before the Hon'ble High Court and matter is sub-judice. Counsel contended Applicant / Corporate Debtor was given power supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
