Going-concern liquidation sale and post-sale tariff true-up charges can be recovered from the auction purchaser.

Where a corporate debtor is sold as a going concern in liquidation, post-sale true-up charges under the electricity tariff regime may be recovered from the successful auction purchaser because the purchaser takes ownership after the sale certificate date and the tariff framework permits recovery for the post-sale consumer connection. The expression "as per law" in the regulatory order did not exempt the purchaser from such liability. A separate contempt-linked appeal was held to be unsustainable because the deduction and refund dispute had already been resolved, leaving no surviving relief; any contempt complaint, if maintainable, lay before the Adjudicating Authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the auction purchaser of a corporate debtor sold as a going concern in liquidation could be fastened with post-sale true-up charges levied under the electricity tariff regime; (ii) whether any relief survived in the contempt-linked appeal after the substantive deduction and refund dispute had already been decided.

Issue (i): Whether the auction purchaser of a corporate debtor sold as a going concern in liquidation could be fastened with post-sale true-up charges levied under the electricity tariff regime.

Analysis: The sale certificate had been issued after the corporate debtor was sold as a going concern in liquidation. On that footing, the corporate debtor continued to exist with its liabilities and obligations, and the successful auction purchaser stepped into ownership after the sale certificate date. The true-up charges were found to have been levied under the APERC tariff framework for the post-sale period, pursuant to the regulatory order governing tariff recovery. The Tribunal held that the expression "as per law" in the regulatory order did not absolve the purchaser from such charges, and that the tariff regime permitted recovery of the true-up amount from the post-sale consumer connection.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and the retention of the true-up charges was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether any relief survived in the contempt-linked appeal after the substantive deduction and refund dispute had already been decided.

Analysis: The contempt-related application had already been dealt with in the order on the refund dispute, where the claimed amount was adjusted and the balance directed to be refunded. In that setting, the Tribunal held that nothing survived for adjudication in the contempt-linked appeal and that any contempt complaint, if at all, lay before the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and the appeal was found not to survive.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the respondent's retention of the post-sale true-up amount and rejected both appeals, leaving no further relief for the appellant in these proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a corporate debtor is sold as a going concern in liquidation, post-sale regulatory dues arising under a binding tariff framework may be recovered from the successor purchaser, and the purchaser is not exempt merely because the underlying consumption period relates to an earlier control period.

---