CIRP claims and essential services: pledged goods cannot be separately enforced, while electricity supply is protected with dues bifurcated.

Once CIRP commenced, a pledged-goods claimant could not insist on separate possession, auction, inspection, or removal of goods from the corporate debtor's premises; such claims had to be pursued within the insolvency process, and the relief was rejected. Electricity was treated as an essential service for going-concern operations, so supply could not be disconnected for CIRP-period dues where payment discipline was maintained. Pre-CIRP arrears and surcharge had to be segregated from post-CIRP liabilities, current consumption charges were to be paid regularly, and post-CIRP arrears were directed to be paid in instalments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a pledged-goods claimant could, after commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, insist on possession, inspection, auction and removal of goods lying in the corporate debtor's ; and (ii) whether the distribution company could disconnect electricity supply for CIRP-period dues, including the treatment of pre-CIRP arrears and surcharge.

Issue (i): Whether a pledged-goods claimant could, after commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, insist on possession, inspection, auction and removal of goods lying in the corporate debtor's premises.

Analysis: Once CIRP had commenced, control and custody of the corporate debtor's assets vested in the resolution professional under the Code. A party asserting a monetary or secured claim against the corporate debtor was required to pursue its claim in the CIRP and not to seek separate possession or self-help sale of goods situated in the corporate debtor's premises. The existence of prior pledge arrangements did not confer a continuing right to take possession, conduct auction, or remove the goods outside the CIRP framework, particularly when the claimant's claim had already been lodged and admitted.

Conclusion: The claimant had no enforceable right to retain possession of, auction, or remove the goods during CIRP. The relief was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the distribution company could disconnect electricity supply for CIRP-period dues, including the treatment of pre-CIRP arrears and surcharge.

Analysis: Electricity was treated as an essential service for the running of the corporate debtor as a going concern. The Court held that surcharge or delayed-payment charges relatable to the pre-CIRP period could not be mixed into post-CIRP bills, and the distribution company's claim had to be appropriately segregated. At the same time, waiver of charges was not permissible, and post-CIRP arrears were directed to be paid in instalments, while current consumption charges were to be paid regularly. Coercive disconnection was therefore not to be used so long as the directed payments were made.

Conclusion: Electricity supply was protected, pre-CIRP and post-CIRP dues had to be bifurcated, and post-CIRP arrears were payable in instalments. The relief was granted in part.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings resulted in rejection of the request for independent dominion over pledged goods during CIRP, while also safeguarding uninterrupted electricity supply for the corporate debtor subject to payment discipline and proper segregation of dues.

Ratio Decidendi: After commencement of CIRP, claims against the corporate debtor must be pursued within the insolvency process and separate possession or disposal rights over assets in the debtor's premises cannot be enforced outside that regime; essential services for the corporate debtor's going-concern operation may be protected, but pre-CIRP dues must remain distinct from post-CIRP liabilities.

---