NCLT rules natural gas not essential supply under IBC Section 14, emphasizes adherence to IBC provisions

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed the Corporate Debtor's application seeking restoration of gas supply by ONGC, ruling that natural gas does not qualify as an essential supply under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Tribunal emphasized its limited jurisdiction and inability to interfere with ONGC's rights, stating that ONGC's actions were not in violation of the IBC. The decision highlights the necessity of adhering to the specific provisions of the IBC when seeking relief in insolvency proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disconnection of gas supply by ONGC to the Corporate Debtor.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) regarding essential supplies.
3. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to pass orders in this context.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disconnection of gas supply by ONGC to the Corporate Debtor:
The Corporate Debtor entered into a Gas Supply Agreement (GSA) with ONGC on 19.04.2017 for the supply of natural gas. Due to the Corporate Debtor's failure to establish Letters of Credit (LCs) as required under the agreement, ONGC issued multiple notices and eventually disconnected the gas supply on 10.05.2019. The Corporate Debtor's operations halted as a result, prompting the Resolution Professional to file an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC seeking restoration of gas supply.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) regarding essential supplies:
The applicant argued that the supply of natural gas was essential for the Corporate Debtor to continue its operations as a going concern, citing the Swiss Ribbons case. However, ONGC contended that natural gas does not fall within the ambit of "essential supplies" under Section 14 of the IBC read with Regulation 32 of the CIRP Regulations. The Tribunal noted that essential supplies, as defined, include electricity, water, telecommunication services, and information technology services, provided they are not direct inputs to the output produced by the Corporate Debtor. Since natural gas is a direct input for electricity production, it does not qualify as an essential supply under the relevant regulations.

3. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to pass orders in this context:
The Tribunal emphasized that for an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, the applicant must demonstrate that their rights have been violated. The Tribunal found that the disconnection of gas supply by ONGC did not violate any provisions of the IBC or other laws. The Tribunal also highlighted that it does not have the jurisdiction to interfere with ONGC's rights and interests, especially when ONGC's actions are not prohibited under Section 14 of the IBC. The Tribunal reiterated that it is not a court with general jurisdiction but a specialized tribunal with limited jurisdiction conferred by the IBC.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the supply of natural gas by ONGC does not fall within the definition of essential supplies under Section 14 of the IBC read with Regulation 32 of the CIRP Regulations. Consequently, the Corporate Debtor's application for restoration of gas supply was dismissed. The Tribunal also clarified that it lacks the jurisdiction to direct ONGC to consider the Corporate Debtor's request for gas supply, as such an order would violate ONGC's legitimate rights. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the specific provisions and limitations of the IBC when seeking relief.

---