Maharashtra Industrial Development ... vs Bhadrashree Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ...Appellant

Versus Bhadrashree Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Agrawal, Ms. Shraddha Dube Patil, Mr. Anandh, Advocates For Respondent:

ORDER

04.01.2023: This is an Application (I.A. No. 4691 of 2022) praying for

condonation of 99 days delay in refiling the Appeal. The cause shown by Learned

Counsel for the Applicant in the Application is that defects were communicated

three or four times and advocate representing the Appellant's being stationed at

Bombay and due to some miss communication and unavoidable work

commitments, the process consumed unforeseen time. Cause shown sufficient,

Delay in refiling the Appeal is condoned.

2. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

3. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 01st October, 2021in

I.A. No. 1464/2020 in CP No. 1704(IB)/MB/C-II/2017. Application was filed by

the Successful Resolution Applicant of the erstwhile Corporate Debtor seeking

certain directions.

2

4. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Applicant had taken the

following view and issued certain directions, paragraph 24-26 of the Order is to

the following effect:

"24. In the light of the above judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claim of water charges of Rs. 47,06,751/- being pre CIRP charges, the same is extinguished and stands cancelled. Hence the claim of Rs. 47,06,751/- is rejected.

25. Further, in view of the approval of Resolution Plan by way of order of the Tribunal on 14.10.2019 and change of constitution of taking over the Corporate Debtor and 100% change in shareholding of the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant is required to pay the differential premium and transfer charges of Rs. 38,09,600/-

26. The Court doth orders as follows

a) The Resolution Applicant is directed to pay amount of Rs. 38,09,600/- to the Respondent No. 1 towards differential premium and transfer charges.

b) The claim of Rs. 47,06,751/- is thus extinguished and untenable.

c) The Respondent No. 1 is directed to reconnect

the water connection to the Applicant upon payment of Rs. 38,09,600/-

d) IA is disposed off with the above direction."

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order submits that in

so far as the claim towards differential premium and transfer charges of the

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1497 of 2022 3

Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority has already passed an order in favour of

Appellant and however the claim of Rs. 47,06,751/-which was towards water

charges has already been extinguished in view of the approval of the Resolution

Plan and amount being pre CIRP.

6. Grievance of the Appellant is that the Successful Resolution Applicant did

not make an Application in accordance with the policy circular for restoration of

water connection which was required to be done as per regulation.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that subsequent to passing of

Order, appropriate procedures were followed and connection has already been

restored in favour of the Appellant.

8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that as far as the rejection of

the claim of 47,06,751/- is concerned, there is no error in the order. We only

observe that there is no concept of automatic restoration of any water connection

and a proper application is required to be made following the procedure and only

benefit Successful Resolution Applicant can claim is extinguishment of the dues

which are not part of the Resolution Plan.

With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1497 of 2022