CIRP claim omission bars later recovery, and electricity dues regulation does not create a charge on premises.
Electricity arrears not lodged within the CIRP timeline and omitted from an approved resolution plan could not be enforced later as a condition for a new connection, because the insolvency framework requires finality and gives the successful resolution applicant a clean slate. Regulation 12.5, on its plain language, made unpaid dues recoverable from a successor, legal representative, new owner, or occupier, but did not create a statutory charge or security interest over the premises itself. The practical effect was that the distribution licensee could not refuse supply on the basis of past arrears not preserved in the resolution plan.
Issues: (i) Whether electricity arrears not lodged within the corporate insolvency resolution process and not forming part of the approved resolution plan could still be insisted upon as a condition for a new connection. (ii) Whether Regulation 12.5 created a statutory charge on the premises for past electricity dues.
Issue (i): Whether electricity arrears not lodged within the corporate insolvency resolution process and not forming part of the approved resolution plan could still be insisted upon as a condition for a new connection.
Analysis: The claim for past dues was required to be filed within the CIRP timeline. Mere awareness of the claim by the resolution professional or resolution applicant did not dispense with the creditor's obligation to lodge proof of claim. Once the resolution plan was approved, the statutory scheme and the governing law of insolvency required certainty and finality, and claims not included in the approved plan stood extinguished. The Court relied on the binding effect of an approved resolution plan and the principle that the successful resolution applicant starts on a clean slate.
Conclusion: The past electricity arrears could not be enforced as a precondition for restoration or grant of a new connection, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.
Issue (ii): Whether Regulation 12.5 created a statutory charge on the premises for past electricity dues.
Analysis: Regulation 12.5 treated unpaid electricity dues as recoverable from the successor, legal representative, new owner, or occupier of the premises. On its plain language, the provision dealt with recovery from the person who thereafter used or occupied the premises and did not create a security interest or enforceable charge in specie over the premises themselves. The regulation therefore did not permit the distribution licensee to refuse connection or treat the premises as subject to a statutory charge for past arrears.
Conclusion: Regulation 12.5 did not create a statutory charge on the premises, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue as well.
Final Conclusion: The interim relief was granted in substance, directing processing of the petitioner's applications for supply without insisting on payment of the old arrears, while leaving the parties' final rights open for adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: In insolvency proceedings, a creditor that fails to lodge its claim within the prescribed CIRP timeline cannot later enforce that omitted claim outside an approved resolution plan, and a regulation making dues recoverable from a successor or occupier does not by itself create a charge on the premises.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
