Insolvency resolution governs pre-CIRP electricity dues; unresolved claims not provided for in the plan cannot be enforced against the successful applicant.

A dispute over pre-CIRP electricity dues linked to implementation of an approved resolution plan fell within NCLT jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because it arose in relation to insolvency resolution. The Code also prevailed over the Electricity Act under Section 238, so the dues dispute was not confined to the Electricity Act alone. As no claim was filed by the electricity company during CIRP and the approved resolution plan made no provision for the arrears, the unresolved pre-CIRP dues could not be enforced against the Successful Resolution Applicant or treated as a condition for restoration of supply.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the NCLT had jurisdiction to decide the dispute after approval of the resolution plan. (ii) Whether the dispute regarding arrears of electricity dues could be dealt with only under the Electricity Act, 2003, and not under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (iii) Whether the Successful Resolution Applicant was liable to pay pre-CIRP electricity dues although no claim was filed and the resolution plan made no provision for such dues.

Issue (i): Whether the NCLT had jurisdiction to decide the dispute after approval of the resolution plan.

Analysis: Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers jurisdiction on the NCLT over questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution. The dispute concerned liability for pre-CIRP electricity dues in the course of implementation of the approved resolution plan, which had a direct nexus with the insolvency process.

Conclusion: The NCLT had jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

Issue (ii): Whether the dispute regarding arrears of electricity dues could be dealt with only under the Electricity Act, 2003, and not under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent laws. The approved resolution plan bound all stakeholders under Section 31(1), and the electricity dues dispute, insofar as it arose in relation to insolvency resolution, could not be confined exclusively to the Electricity Act, 2003.

Conclusion: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prevailed over the Electricity Act, 2003 for deciding the dispute.

Issue (iii): Whether the Successful Resolution Applicant was liable to pay pre-CIRP electricity dues although no claim was filed and the resolution plan made no provision for such dues.

Analysis: Pre-CIRP creditors were required to lodge claims in the CIRP. No claim was filed by the electricity company, and the approved resolution plan did not provide for payment of the disputed arrears. Once the resolution plan was approved, earlier claims not forming part of the plan stood extinguished and could not be enforced as a condition for restoring electricity supply.

Conclusion: The Successful Resolution Applicant was not liable to pay the pre-CIRP electricity dues.

Final Conclusion: The dispute over pre-CIRP electricity arrears was held to fall within the insolvency jurisdiction, the Code was held to override the Electricity Act, and the impugned order nullifying the arrears was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dispute over statutory dues has a direct nexus with implementation of an approved resolution plan, the NCLT may adjudicate it under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and unresolved pre-CIRP claims not provided for in the plan cannot be enforced against the Successful Resolution Applicant.

---