Security deposit cannot be adjusted against pre-CIRP dues during moratorium under Section 14(1)(c) IBC 2016

NCLAT Chennai dismissed appeal challenging NCLT order prohibiting adjustment of security deposit against pre-CIRP dues during moratorium period. Court held that Section 14(1)(c) of IBC, 2016 prohibits recovery actions for past dues once corporate debtor enters CIRP. Essential supplies must continue during CIRP with payment of current dues only. Citing Supreme Court precedent in Paschimanchal Vidyut case, tribunal ruled IBC provisions prevail over other statutes. Security deposit could only be adjusted against post-CIRP dues, not pre-CIRP obligations. Recovery of past dues specifically prohibited under moratorium provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the appropriation of a security deposit towards pre-CIRP dues during the moratorium period is permissible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
2. The applicability of Section 14 of the IBC, 2016, regarding the moratorium and its impact on the enforcement of security interests.
3. The role of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) regulations in the context of the IBC proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appropriation of Security Deposit Towards Pre-CIRP Dues:

The primary issue in this case was whether the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) could adjust a security deposit of Rs. 108.44 crores against pre-CIRP dues of the Corporate Debtor during the moratorium period. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that such appropriation is impermissible and contrary to the provisions of the IBC, 2016. The tribunal directed that the security deposit should be adjusted towards post-CIRP dues instead. This decision was based on the principle that once a company is admitted into CIRP, all recovery actions for past dues must cease, and any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor cannot be enforced during the moratorium period.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the IBC, 2016:

Section 14 of the IBC, 2016, imposes a moratorium that prohibits any action to foreclose, recover, or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal emphasized that the moratorium aims to keep the Corporate Debtor's assets intact during the insolvency resolution process, facilitating an orderly completion of the process and ensuring that the Corporate Debtor continues as a going concern. The tribunal referenced several judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, which reinforced the notion that the moratorium under Section 14 acts as a shield against pecuniary attacks on the Corporate Debtor, thereby providing it with the necessary breathing space to rehabilitate itself.

3. Role of CERC Regulations:

The appellant argued that the CERC regulations allowed for the adjustment of the security deposit against pre-CIRP dues following the FIFO (First In First Out) method. However, the tribunal found that the provisions of the IBC, 2016, specifically Section 238, override any inconsistent provisions in other laws, including the Electricity Act and CERC regulations. The tribunal cited judgments that supported the primacy of the IBC over other statutes, emphasizing that any claims regarding pre-CIRP dues must be submitted to the Resolution Professional for adjudication and payment as per the approved resolution plan.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the NCLT's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the security deposit should not be adjusted against pre-CIRP dues. The tribunal reiterated the importance of adhering to the IBC's provisions, which prioritize the resolution process and the continuation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern over the recovery of past dues.

---