2023 (8) TMI 905 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal Upholds Approval of Resolution Plan, Denies Recovery of Electricity Dues

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited Versus Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries, IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited, Bhrugesh Ramchandra Amin

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the approval of a Resolution Plan, finding that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to waive ... Jurisdiction of the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘Tribunal’ to ‘waive’, the ‘Electricity Dues’, recoverable from the premises - HELD THAT:- A mere running of the eye over the Judgment, dated 13/12/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1078/2020 (Principal Bench) [2023 (1) TMI 290 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], this ‘Tribunal’, comes to an ‘inevitable’, ‘irresistible’ and ‘inescapable’ conclusion, that this ‘Appellate Tribunal’ has observed [2022 (5) TMI 1365 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI]. Following the said ‘Judgment’ of this ‘Appellate Tribunal’, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 62/2022, before the ‘Tribunal, this ‘Tribunal’, dismisses the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 62/2022, but without Costs. Issues Involved:The judgment involves the issue of jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to waive electricity dues recoverable from premises following a resolution plan, as well as the applicability of statutory regulations in the context of resolution plans approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.Appellant's Pleas:The Appellant, a Statutory Authority and Aggrieved Person, challenged an Impugned Order approving a Resolution Plan submitted by a Resolution Applicant. The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider Clause 8.4 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply, contending that the Authority lacked jurisdiction to waive electricity dues recoverable from the premises post-resolution. The Appellant cited a Supreme Court decision and a previous judgment of the Appellate Tribunal to support their position. The Appellant urged the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in line with the previous judgment.Stance of Respondents Nos. 1 & 3:The Respondents did not dispute that the present appeal was covered by a previous judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. Upon reviewing the previous judgment, the Tribunal found that the issues raised in the current appeal were addressed and dismissed in the earlier case. The Tribunal highlighted specific paragraphs from the previous judgment that concluded the Appellant was not entitled to recover pre-CIRP and post-CIRP dues from a Successful Auction Purchaser. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's approval of the Resolution Plan and dismissed the appeal accordingly.Disposition:In light of the previous judgment applicable to the current appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the instant appeal without costs. The connected pending applications for exemption and leave to file were also closed as part of the disposition.