https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444422 Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as conferring residuary jurisdiction over a dispute arising from liquidation and sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern, so the application was maintainable. The tribunal noted that the electricity claim had already been admitted in liquidation and dealt with under the statutory waterfall, making the attempt to insist on payment of the same extinguished arrears unsustainable. Applying the clean slate principle, it held that the successful bidder could not be compelled to clear pre-liquidation electricity dues as a condition for restoration or grant of a fresh connection, and only charges lawfully payable for a new connection could be insisted upon. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 15 Oct 2023 15:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444422 Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as conferring residuary jurisdiction over a dispute arising from liquidation and sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern, so the application was maintainable. The tribunal noted that the electricity claim had already been admitted in liquidation and dealt with under the statutory waterfall, making the attempt to insist on payment of the same extinguished arrears unsustainable. Applying the clean slate principle, it held that the successful bidder could not be compelled to clear pre-liquidation electricity dues as a condition for restoration or grant of a fresh connection, and only charges lawfully payable for a new connection could be insisted upon. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444422