Tribunal rules on water charges & service fees, applying "Clean Slate" doctrine. Upholds post-Resolution Plan costs.

The Tribunal rejected the claim of Rs. 47,06,751 for water charges and service charges pre-CIRP period, citing the Doctrine of "Clean Slate." However, it upheld the claim of Rs. 38,09,600 for the post-Resolution Plan approval differential premium and transfer charges. The Resolution Applicant was directed to pay the approved amount, and upon payment, the water connection was to be reconnected.

---

---

Issues:
1. Claim of water charges and service charges pre CIRP period.
2. Claim of differential premium and transfer charges post Resolution Plan approval.

Analysis:
Issue 1: Claim of water charges and service charges pre CIRP period
The Resolution Applicant, as the successful Resolution Applicant of the Corporate Debtor, filed an application seeking reconnection of water supply to the unit. The Respondent No. 1, a statutory body under Maharashtra Development Act, claimed outstanding water charges of Rs. 47,06,751. However, the Tribunal, citing legal precedent and the Doctrine of "Clean Slate," held that pre CIRP claims cannot be pursued post-Resolution Plan approval. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited, the Tribunal ruled that such claims stand extinguished upon Resolution Plan approval. Consequently, the claim of Rs. 47,06,751 was rejected.

Issue 2: Claim of differential premium and transfer charges post Resolution Plan approval
The Respondent No. 1 also demanded differential premium and transfer charges of Rs. 38,09,600 post-Resolution Plan approval due to the change in shareholding of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found this claim valid and binding, directing the Resolution Applicant to pay the said amount. Considering the Resolution Plan approval and the change in Corporate Debtor's shareholding, the Tribunal ordered the Resolution Applicant to pay the differential premium and transfer charges. The Respondent No. 1 was instructed to reconnect the water connection upon payment of the differential premium and transfer charges.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered the Resolution Applicant to pay Rs. 38,09,600 towards differential premium and transfer charges, while rejecting the claim of Rs. 47,06,751 for water charges. The Respondent No. 1 was directed to reconnect the water connection upon receipt of the payment. The Interlocutory Application was disposed of with the aforementioned directions.

---