Insolvency resolution plan finality bars post-CIRP recovery of pre-resolution electricity dues not filed in the insolvency process.

An approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 binds all stakeholders and, through the Code's overriding effect, prevails over inconsistent electricity recovery mechanisms. Public announcement of CIRP is treated as sufficient notice to statutory authorities, and claims not filed during CIRP are extinguished once the resolution plan is approved. Accordingly, post-resolution demand notices cannot enforce pre-CIRP electricity dues that were neither admitted nor preserved in the plan. Only liabilities arising after resolution, or separately lawfully attributable, may be pursued in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 overrides the Electricity Act, 2003 and the State electricity recovery framework so as to bar post-resolution recovery of pre-CIRP dues; (ii) Whether public announcement under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is sufficient notice to statutory authorities and whether failure to file claims during CIRP extinguishes such claims after approval of the resolution plan; (iii) Whether demand notices raising electricity dues for the pre-CIRP period are sustainable after approval and implementation of the resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 overrides the Electricity Act, 2003 and the State electricity recovery framework so as to bar post-resolution recovery of pre-CIRP dues.

Analysis: The statutory scheme gives primacy to the insolvency process through the non obstante clause in Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 31(1) makes an approved resolution plan binding on all stakeholders, including governmental and statutory authorities. The Electricity Act, 2003 may contain its own overriding provisions, but they cannot defeat the later and more specific insolvency framework where there is inconsistency. Pre-resolution liabilities not included in the approved plan cannot be revived through electricity recovery proceedings after the corporate debtor has emerged from CIRP on a fresh slate.

Conclusion: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prevails, and pre-CIRP electricity dues not forming part of the approved resolution plan cannot be enforced post-resolution.

Issue (ii): Whether public announcement under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is sufficient notice to statutory authorities and whether failure to file claims during CIRP extinguishes such claims after approval of the resolution plan.

Analysis: The Code contemplates public announcement of CIRP and does not require individual notice to each creditor or statutory authority. Once public announcement is made, stakeholders are expected to file claims within the prescribed time. Claims capable of being raised during CIRP but not filed are frozen and extinguished on approval of the resolution plan. The fact that the respondents did not file claims, and did not challenge the plan before it attained finality, is decisive against subsequent enforcement of the same dues.

Conclusion: Public announcement was sufficient notice, and the respondents' failure to file claims during CIRP resulted in extinguishment of the pre-resolution claims.

Issue (iii): Whether demand notices raising electricity dues for the pre-CIRP period are sustainable after approval and implementation of the resolution plan.

Analysis: Demand notices issued after approval of the resolution plan cannot survive to the extent they relate to liabilities that accrued before CIRP and were neither filed nor preserved in the plan. The Court distinguished between pre-resolution dues and liabilities arising from post-resolution conduct or continuing consumption, holding that only the latter may be pursued in accordance with law. To the extent the impugned demands sought recovery of pre-CIRP dues, they were inconsistent with the finality of the approved resolution plan and the clean slate principle.

Conclusion: The demand notices were unsustainable to the extent they related to pre-CIRP dues and were liable to be quashed in that respect.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plans settled the pre-resolution liabilities, and the respondents could not resurrect extinguished electricity dues outside the insolvency framework. Recovery may proceed only in respect of any lawful post-resolution liability, if separately attributable and raised in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An approved resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 binds all stakeholders and extinguishes claims not filed during CIRP or not preserved in the plan, and by virtue of Section 238 such finality prevails over inconsistent electricity recovery laws.

---