Damodar Valley Corporation vs Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited

Damodar Valley Corporation ... Appellant Through its Authorized Representative Having its registered office at the DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata - 700054. (West Bengal)

Versus

1. Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited ...Respondent No. 1 Through its Managing Director (Resolution Professional) registered office at Trishul Apartments, Ground Floor, Nit Nos. G-A & G-D, premises No. 35, Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020. West Bengal.

2. Mr. Anish Ranjan Nanavaty Respondent No. 2 Having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00272/2017-18/10830 of Delloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, India Bulls Finance Centre, Tower 3, 27th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.

Present

For Appellant: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate

For Respondent: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhiren Sharma, Mr. Naresh Balodia,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 1 of 22 Mr. Divakar Kumar and AT Patra, Advocates for R-1, Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal and Ms. Charu Bansal, Advocates for R-2.

Judgment (Date: 01.10.2021)

{Per: Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member (T)}

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 31 of the Insolvency

and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter called IBC) by the

Appellant, who is aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2019 of the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata)

(hereinafter called the Impugned Order) in CA (IB) No.

1271/KB/2019 in CP (IB) No. 596/KB/2017.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case, as stated and argued by

the Appellant, is that on an application filed by Citibank N.A.

against the Corporate Debtor Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited (CFAL in

short) under Section 7 of IBC, an admission order was passed by

the Adjudicating Authority on 16.1.2018, thereby setting the

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in motion. The

Appellant Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC in short), which is the

Operational Creditor, used to supply power to the Corporate

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 2 of 22 Debtor, and it is alleged by the Appellant that the Corporate Debtor

was in huge arrears in payment of electricity dues and delay

payment charges. Consequently, a disconnection notice was given

by DVC to the Corporate Debtor on 1.1.2018 and its power supply

was disconnected on 17.1.2018. It is also claimed by the

Operational Creditor DVC that when the electricity supply was

disconnected it was not aware of the initiation of Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP in short) of the Corporate

Debtor.

3. It is further stated by the Appellant that a letter dated

18.1.2018was given by the Corporate Debtor CFAL to Operational

Creditor DVC for reconnection with promise to pay arrears of

electricity dues in instalments. In the meanwhile, a Resolution

Plan, as approved and recommended by the Committee of

Creditors, was approved vide order dated 11.10.2018 by the

Adjudicating Authority.

4. The Successful Resolution Applicant, which had stepped in

the role of the Corporate Debtor, requested for increase in the

contract demand from 10 MVA to 20 MVA vide letter dated

15.1.2019 and, inter alia, asking for reconnection of electricity

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 3 of 22 supply with waiver of security deposit. In response, vide letter

dated 16.4.2019, DVC sought security deposit of Rs.6.43 crores for

increasing the contract demand. Again, through letter dated

22.4.2019, the Corporate Debtor requested for revision of contract

demand from 10 MVA to 16 MVA through the existing 33 KV power

line. It also requested that its power supply be given through 132

KV line at the earliest. Again, through letter dated 23.5.2019, the

Corporate Debtor sought increase of contract demand from 10 MVA

to 45 MVA over next five years without any security deposit and

installation of 132 KV powerline to supply power to its

manufacturing unit without taking any security deposit over the

next five years. It also agreed to clear outstanding dues of Rs.18.8

crores to DVC, which is the share of the Operational Creditor DVC

in the approved Resolution Plan. Vide letter dated 6.8.2019, the

Appellant again asked for security deposit, and since no security

deposit was forthcoming from the Corporate Debtor, DVC

disconnected electricity supply to the Corporate Debtor after giving

notice of disconnection on 30.8.2019. DVC has also submitted

that electricity supply to the Corporate Debtor is governed by Power

Purchase Agreement dated 20.1.2005 entered into between the

Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor, and the

Supplementary Agreement dated 22.6.2007, and both the parties

have to abide by the terms and conditions contained therein. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 4 of 22 5. We heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsels of Appellant

and Respondent No. 1. The Ld. Counsel of Appellant has claimed

that it has reconnected the power supply at the previous level of

contract demand without taking any security deposit. He has

argued that since the Corporate Debtor is seeking an increase in

contract demand from 10 MVA to 45 MVA and also supply from

132 KV powerline from the current 33 KV powerline, it is entitled to

ask for security deposit as stipulated in the notification no.

52/WBERC dated 2.4.2013 of the West Bengal Electricity

Regulatory Commission (WBERC) and the Power Purchase

Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement (supra).The Learned

Counsel for Appellant has also stated that the Resolution Plan does

not contain any explicit provision regarding waiver of security

deposit over the next five years. It only includes a request for

waiver of security deposit for next five years regarding which the

Adjudicating Authority should pass specific order, which was not

given by the Adjudicating Authority while approving the resolution

plan. Therefore, in the absence of a specific and explicit order

there is no case for waiving off security deposit over the next five

years for increased contract demand and electricity supply through

a new 132 KV powerline.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 5 of 22 6. The Learned Counsel for Appellant has further argued that

DVC is a Distribution Company ('discom' in short), which is an

entity run on commercial principles and any waiver, that is

accorded to the Successful Resolution Applicant which is not

explicitly provided in the approved Resolution Plan, will cause loss

to the Appellant affecting its overall functioning. The Learned

Counsel has also stated that Appellant has reconnected the

electricity supply after the approval of the Resolution Plan, wherein

an amount of Rs.24.67 crores was sanctioned as share of the

Operational Creditor DVC qua its total demand of Rs. 64.45 crores,

and therefore it has already lost a large part of its claim in the

resolution of the Corporate Debtor CFAL. He has further stated

that the Successful Resolution Applicant is in default of full

payment of the share of DVC in the resolution amount. In addition,

the Successful Resolution Applicant is also not paying the current

electricity bill as per consumption, and as on 13.9.2021, the total

dues (which includes the share of the Appellant after resolution of

the Corporate Debtor) is Rs. 26.68 crores. He has also claimed

that the dues of electricity supplied during the CIRP should also be

paid to the DVC as part of CIRP costs. The Learned Counsel for

Appellant has argued that the Successful Resolution Applicant has

not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hence

its claim of waiver of security deposit should not even be Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 6 of 22 considered.

7. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1CFAL has stated

that the Resolution Plan, as approved by the Adjudicating

Authority, stipulates that all power dues which includes principal,

arrears, interest arrears and any delayed payment charges or

penalty etc. as well as charges, if any, demanded for resumption of

power supply over and above the amount to be paid under this

Resolution Plan to the Appellant shall be waived. The Learned

Counsel for Respondent No.1 has also claimed that the demand of

bank guarantee/cash as security deposit for providing supply of

power from 132 KVA power connection is to be waived for the next

five years from the approval date of the Resolution Plan and no

disconnection of power due to settlement of past dues will be done

as this is provided in the approved Resolution Plan. He has

claimed that the approved Resolution Plan which includes a

request for specific order by NCLT, has approved this request once

the Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan. The

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has, therefore, argued that

DVC should not demand any security deposit for increase of the

contract demand to 45 MVA from 10 MVA and supply of electricity

through 132 KV powerline as that would cause financial distress to

the Corporate Debtor which is in the process of being revived after Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 7 of 22 its successful resolution.

8. We have perused the appeal memo, reply and rejoinder

submitted by Respondent No. 1 and the Appellant and considered

carefully the averments made therein and the oral arguments

submitted by the parties.

9. The Approved Resolution Plan contains provision regarding

accrued/contingent liabilities claimed by DVC and other demands

relating to security deposit at pp. 139-140 of the Appeal Paperbook

Volume II, filed vide diary No. 17632 dated 8.1.2020), which is

reproduced below for ready reference: -

"Accrued/Contingent Liabilities claimed by the Damodar

Valley Corporation ("DVC) for supply of power-Waiver

Approval by NCLT for all Power Dues which includes Principal,

Arrears, Interest Arrears, any Delayed Payment Charges or

Penalty etc. till the Date of NCLT Order approving the

Resolution Plan as well as Charges, if any demanded for

Resumption of Power Supply over and above the Amount to be

paid under this Resolution Plan. This will assist in immediate

start of the Production of Goods.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 8 of 22 Waiver of all Liabilities (including Interest, Penal Interest,

Penalty, Interest on Penalty, any kind of Late Fee as well as

Principal Liability due) related to Electricity Charges which

may arise out of Ongoing Disputes with DVC OR Specific Order

to DVC to withdraw the case.

Bank Guarantee/Cash as Security Deposit demanded by the

Damodar Valley Corporation ("DVC") for supply of Power -

Waiver/Stay Approval by specific order by NCLT for Bank

Guarantee/Cash as Security Deposit by DVC against regular

Power Usage on basis of Contract Demand as per WBERC

Regulation (Demand Notice issued in May 2018) or for any

Specific reasons (e.g. providing 132 KVA Power Connection

with 132 KVA Sanction Load) for next 5 years from the

Approval Date of the Resolution Plan by NCLT.

Request is being placed for the Waiver/Stay of security

deposit of Bank Guarantee/Cash for 5 years as the Corporate

Debtor is totally under stress and attempt is being made by

the resolution applicant to revive the Corporate Debtor is best

possible way under this Proposed Resolution Plan through

Optimal Infusion of Debt and efficient Working Capital

Management. The Plan is to increase the production with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 9 of 22 Optimal Working Capital infusion so as to ensure better

margins and low Interest Costs. The Demand of Bank

Guarantee/Cash immediately will cause stress on the

Resolution Applicant/Corporate Debtor in terms of revival as it

will take 5 years for the Resolution Applicant to make the

Corporate Debtor a Debt Free Company with good bottom-line.

Request is also placed for Specific Order by NCLT that DVC

should be directed to maintain the supply of electricity without

any disconnection of Power due to settlement of past dues of

DVC under this Resolution Plan. In the event of disconnection

for the stated reasons, DVC should be directed to adhere to

the Specific Order of NCLT under this Resolution Plan.

Specific Order for NCLT to DVC for 132 KVA Power Connection

- Request is placed for Specific Order by NCLT and DVC

should provide the 132 KVA Power Connection which was

halted due to the non-payment of Past Dues as the Sub-station

for 132 KVA Power Connectivity is ready.

Synopsis - Cosmic Ferro is being able to draw 27.5 MVA from

its existing 33 KVA grid line that has been provided by DVC.

The company has an installed capacity of 45 MVA through its Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 10 of 22 existing 5 submerged arc furnaces of 9 MVA each with

production capacity (peak) of 80,000 MT pa. However due to

current level of power connectivity of 33 KVA, the production

capacity has been restricted to a peak level of 55000 MT pa

only and this ensures higher fixed costs of production on per

tonne basis.

WBIDC had given the permission for the power corridor in

2017 stating that the line would be given to the three

consumers including the Corporate Debtor, which is now at

completion stage.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

10. We now peruse the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority in CP IB No. 596/KB/2017, which relates to

the approval of the Resolution Plan, wherein the relevant approval

is in paragraph no. 8:-

"8. In view of the above, I have gone through the Resolution

Plan submitted for my approval. In Part-A of the Resolution

Plan, I found that the provision is made for payment of

insolvency resolution process costs. It appears to be

somewhat at higher side because provision of amount of Rs. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 11 of 22 12.20 crores is made to incur resolution costs, which includes

fees of resolution professional amounting to Rs. 6.33 crores

(page 29). However, since it is approved by the CoC and this

authority has no reason to doubt wisdom of CoC, I hold that

the provisions of section 30(2)(a) of I&B Code is complied with.

The plan also provides that repayment of debts of operational

creditor (page 33). In para 2(e) of the plan at page 63 states

the modalities suggested for management of the affairs of the

Corporate Debtor and it also provides mechanism for effective

supervision and implementation of the plan. In view of this, I

hold that the provisions of section 30(2)(b) and 20(2)(c) of I&B

Code are complied with. One, Mr. Nitesh Kumar sworn an

affidavit on behalf of the resolution applicant stating that the

resolution applicant, Consortium of United Tradeco FZC and

QVC Exports Pvt Limited does not suffer from any

disqualification as stated under section 29A of the I&B Code.

The plan does not contravene any provisions of law and the

same is in conformity with the provisions of I&B code.

Resolution Professional has produced the certificate under

Regulation 39(4) of the I&B Code in Form H stating that the

plan is in conformity with all legal requirements. The

Resolution Plan submitted for approval of this Authority

complies with all the requirements stated under section 30(2) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 12 of 22 of the I&B code. Hence, I approve this plan for Corporate

Debtor and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Resolution Plan of M/s Consortium of United

Tradeco FZC and QVC Exports Pvt. Limited which is approved

by the CoC with 95.86% voting percentage, is hereby approved

under provisions of section 31(1) of the Insolvency &

Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which will be binding on the

Corporate Debtor, its employees, members, creditors,

coordinators and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution

Plan.

2. The revival plan of the company in accordance with

approved Resolution Plan shall come into force with immediate

effect.

3. The moratorium order passed under Section 14 shall

cease to have effect.

4. The Resolution Professional shall forward all records

relating to the conduct of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process and the Resolution Plan to the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Board of India to be recorded on its database"

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 13 of 22

11. As is seen from the aforementioned extract of order dated

11.10.2018, the proposed Resolution Plan is approved by the

Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the IBC, but there is

no specific or explicit approval of the waivers requested by the

Successful Resolution Applicant of various charges including

Security Deposit charges.

12. The accrued/contingent liabilities claimed by DVC for supply

of power till the date of the approval of the Resolution Plan by the

Adjudicating Authority is waived as per Resolution Plan. We also

note that the Corporate Debtors ought reconnection during the

ongoing CIRP vide letter dated 18.1.2018 (page 74 of Appeal

Paperbook, Volume I) and through which the Corporate Debtor also

committed itself to pay the amounts due to DVC in monthly

installments. This letter is signed by the Director of Cosmic Ferro

Alloys Limited and not by the IRP even though it was issued after

the initiation of CIRP on 16.1.2018. We also note from the written

submissions of the Appellant (diary no. 29878 dated 20.9.2021)

that electricity supply was reconnected to the Corporate Debtor.

13. On perusing the letters exchanged between the Appellant and

Respondent No.1 between 15.1.2019 and 19.8.2019, we find that

the Respondent No. 1 has been making different requests in each Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 14 of 22 letter regarding the quantum of increase of contract demand and

waiver of security deposit. For example, in the letter dated

15.1.2019 (attached at page 643 of the Appeal Paperbook, Vol. IV).

Respondent No.1 sought an increase in contract demand from 10

MVA to 20 MVA from 31.1.2019, on which through letter dated

16.4.2019Appellant sought security deposit of Rs. 6.43 crores for

enhancement of contract demand. Then again vide letter dated

22.4.2019,Respondent No. 1 sought revision of contract amount

from 10 MVA to 16 MVA at 33 kilovolt power line supply and also a

new connection to 132 KV powerline. Thereafter, by another letter

dated 23.5.2019 Respondent No. 1 requested for increase of

contract demand from 10 MVA to 45 MVA over the next five years

without any security deposit and installation of 132 KV powerline

without payment of any security deposit over the next five years

while agreeing to clear the outstanding dues of Rs.18.8 crores as

contained in the Resolution Plan. On 6.8.2019, Appellant asked

Respondent No. 1to deposit security amount and in reply,

Respondent No. 1, vide letter dated 19.8.2019 wrote to Appellant to

rescind its demand for security deposit, citing the approval of the

Resolution Plan in its entirety in support of waiver of any security

deposit over next five years.

14. It is clear from the communications cited in the aforesaid Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 15 of 22 paragraph that the contract demand was at the level of 10 MVA

and Respondent No. 1 sought its increase through its various

letters. In addition, Respondent No. 1 also sought a change in

electricity supply from a powerline of 33 KV to 132 KV. All these

letters are given after the approval of the Resolution Plan. In the

absence of any specific clause regarding these with the waiver of

security deposit over next five years in the Adjudicating Authority's

order dated 20.11.2019 (approval of the Resolution Plan). The

request of the Respondent No. 1 regarding waiver of security

deposit over next five years, and also seeking of security deposit for

increasing the contract demand as well as supplying power through

a higher voltage power supply line of 132 KV is considered proper

under West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations

Notification No. 52/WBERC dated 2.4.2013 (attached at pp. 654-

658 of the Appeal PaperBook, Vol. IV).

15. The Appellant has claimed that, under the approved

Resolution Plan, Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay to the

Operational Creditor DVC an amount of Rs.24.67 crores as per the

following schedule:-

(i) Upfront payment within 30 days (after approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority) -Rs. 4.93 crores (ii) Payment before 31.3.2020 - Rs. 4.93 crores (iii) Payment after 31.3.2020, but before

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 16 of 22 31.3.2021 - Rs. 4.93 crores

(iv). Payment after 31.3.2021, but before 31.3.2022 - Rs.4.94 crores

(v) Payment after 31.3.2022, but before 31.3.2023 -Rs. 4.94 crores Total: -Rs.24.67 crores

According to the Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 has defaulted in

making payment in accordance with this schedule, as only Rs. 2.25

crores was paid within 30 days of the approval of the Resolution

Plan against an approved amount of Rs. 4.93 crores. His claim is

that while a monitoring committee was in place, it failed to ensure

payment to the Appellant in accordance with the approved

Resolution Plan. For this reason, and also because the Respondent

No. 1 failed to provide security deposit as required by letter dated

6.8.2019 (attached at pg. 653 of Appeal Paperbook Vol. IV), the

Appellant issued disconnection notice on failure to pay the security

deposit vide a letter dated 30.8.2019 and disconnection took place

thereafter.

16. It is, thus, clear that Respondent No. 1 did not adhere to the

payment schedule for the payment of resolution amount to

Appellant DVC hence a disconnection notice was given to the vide

letter dated 30.8.2019 to Respondent No. 1.

17. The Learned Counsel for Appellant has cited the following Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 17 of 22 judgments in support of his case:-

(i) Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State

of Karnataka reported in (2020) 13 SCC 608

(ii) Telangana State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. - Vs-

Srigdha Beverages reported in [(2020) 6 SCC 404]

(iii) Prasad Gempex Vs. Star Agro Marine Exports Pvt.

Ltd. reported in [(2019) 219 Company Case 409]

18. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has submitted

following citations in support of his contentions:

(i) India Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amit Metaliks

Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0367/2021 dated 13.05.2021

(ii) Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta &

Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 531 dated 15.11.2019.

(iii) Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. reported

in 2021 SCC online SC 313 = MANU/SC/0273/2021.

19. The ratio in the judgments cited by the Learned Counsel for

Appellant hold that during the moratorium period, no action can be

taken to dispose off or alienate the assets of corporate debtor. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 18 of 22 Telangana State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Srigdha

Beverages judgment is not under the IBC, though it seeks waiver

of electricity dues in the specific context of that case, which is not

applicable in the present Appeal. Any grant of waiver or otherwise

should be governed by the specific provisions of the approved

Resolution Plan.

20. The citations relied upon by the Learned Counsel of

Respondent No. 1 primarily lay down that the commercial wisdom

of the C0C is not subject to judicial review at the instance of any

party, whether it is dissenting creditor or shareholder. This view is

also held in Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and

Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset

Reconstruction Co. Ltd. judgments. Therefore, the judgments

cited have specific context which are different from the contextual

situation in the present appeal.

21. In the light of the above, we are of very clear view that once

reconnection has been provided by the Appellant at the previously

held contract demand of 10 MVA through a 33 KV power supply

line, any change in the contract demand or an enhanced power

supply voltage of 132 KV will not be covered under the provisions of

the approved Resolution Plan.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 19 of 22

22. Thus, insofar as the request of the successful resolution

applicant regarding waiver of security deposit for 5 years for

increase in the contract demand to 45 MVA and supply of power at

an enhanced voltage of 132 KV is concerned, waiver of bank

guarantee/cash as security deposit by DVC against regular power

usage on basis of contract demand for at 132 KV for next five years

from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by the

Adjudicating Authority is not given bya specific order by the

Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). Similarly, providing power supply

through 132 KV supply line is also not granted by a specific order

of NCLT. Thus, these requests only remain as proposals which

have not been accepted or approved by specific order of the

Adjudicating Authority while approving the Resolution Plan.

Therefore, in our view in the absence of any specific orders, the

Appellant is not obliged to grant any waiver of payment of security

deposit over the next five years for increase in contract demand or

supply of electricity by a 132 KV supply line.

23. Moreover, we are also of the view that any statutory or

legitimate dues which might be demanded from the Successful

Resolution Applicant (SRA) for supply of any services should be

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 20 of 22 paid by the SRA and no waiver for any period of time for the future

is not permissible.

24. It is stated in the written submissions filed by the Appellant

(Diary No. 29878 dated 20.9. 2021) that the Respondent No. 1 is in

default of payment of electricity bills for the period February 2020

to August 2020 amounting to Rs.15,94,21,974 (at serial number xii

in the Written Submissions of the Appellant). This amount has

become due and payable to Appellant after the submission and

approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority on

11.10. 2018. We are of the opinion that the parties should take

action regarding these or any subsequent dues including security

deposit in accordance with the extant and relevant regulations of

WBERC. The dues of electricity supplied by DVC to the Corporate

Debtor during the CIRP period, if not paid, should be paid from out

of CIRP costs and the Resolution Professional should ensure it.

25. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order and

make it clear that any security deposit or other charges for

requested increase in contract demand and enhanced supply line

for electricity will have to be paid to the discom DVC in accordance

with the relevant and extant laws and regulations. The payment of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 21 of 22 dues for electricity supplied to the corporate debtor during the

moratorium period, to keep the corporate debtor as a going

concern, should be paid out of CIRP costs, and the payment should

be ensured by the Resolution Professional. Any dues relating to

electricity supplied after the moratorium has ceased will have to be

paid by the corporate debtor to the discom DVC. The Adjudicating

Authority could be approached in case of any difficulty. There is

no order as to costs.

(Justice Jarat Kumar Jain) Member (Judicial)

(Dr. Alok Srivastava) Member (Technical)

New Delhi 1st October, 2021

/aks/

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020

Page 22 of 22