Interim stay applications over admission of an electricity distribution licensee into CIRP turned on the asserted primacy of the Insolvency Code over the Electricity Act and the alleged invalidity of a corporate guarantee for want of regulatory approval. One Member held that existing Supreme Court authority foreclosed the Electricity Act objection and that a disputed approval issue did not by itself make the guarantee fraudulent, coercive, or void, so no stay was warranted. The other Member distinguished that authority, stressing the effect of CIRP on the licensed business and consumers and preferring the less injurious course. With this difference of opinion, the Bench made no final determination on interim relief and referred the matter.
Interim stay applications over admission of an electricity distribution licensee into CIRP turned on the asserted primacy of the Insolvency Code over the Electricity Act and the alleged invalidity of a corporate guarantee for want of regulatory approval. One Member held that existing Supreme Court authority foreclosed the Electricity Act objection and that a disputed approval issue did not by itself make the guarantee fraudulent, coercive, or void, so no stay was warranted. The other Member distinguished that authority, stressing the effect of CIRP on the licensed business and consumers and preferring the less injurious course. With this difference of opinion, the Bench made no final determination on interim relief and referred the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
