Mr. Devarajan Raman vs General Manager Revenue The Bangalore ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 350 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellant's claims concerning electricity billing, refund and disconnection during the corporate insolvency resolution process arise from matters for which the Adjudicating Authority has indicated that the remedy lies before the appellate authority of the concerned department, the Appellate Tribunal will not itself adjudicate those grievances, and it is open to the appellant to pursue them by appeal or representation before that appropriate authority, which is to consider and decide them. Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the appellant shows sufficient cause, and an explanation that the impugned order was made available only after a delay, followed by a misplacement of the certified copy within counsel's office, is accepted as sufficient cause for condoning an 11-day delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Mr. Devarajan Raman ....Appellant Vs. General Manager, Revenue ...Respondents The Bangalore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. & Anr. For Appellant Ms. Anjali Sharma, Mr. S.K.Sagar, Advocates. For Respondents
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
27.02.2024: I.A. No. 1186 of 2024:- This is an application praying for condonation of delay. The grounds given for condonation of 11 days' delay are mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application, which are as follows:-
"2 The Appellant humbly submits that though the impugned order was pronounced on 12.12.2023, it was in fact uploaded onto the NCLT Portal, and therefore available to the Appellant in entirety, only on 02.01.2024. In the meantime, the Appellant had already applied for certified copy, since a free copy of the order had also not been made available to him. A certified true copy was provided on 03.01.2024. Thereafter, the Appellant couriered the same to the office of his counsel, but due to some miscommunication at the counsel's office, it was placed in the file titled "Devarajan Raman Vs Principal Commissioner and Others", being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 977 of 2023, which is another appeal filed by the Appellant herein before this Hon'ble Tribunal, that is currently pending and next listed on 24.01.2024. It was only after the Appellant enquired regarding progress in mid-January, that the certified true order of the impugned order was located in the counsel's office, and the present appeal drawn out and filed.
2 3. In the circumstances listed out in the preceding para, the present appeal is being filed beyond a period of 30 days from the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 12 December, 2023.
The Appellant humbly submits that in the circumstances explained above, he has made out sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the present appeal."
2. We see sufficient cause to condone the delay. Delay of 11 days' is condoned.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 350 of 2024:-
This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 12.12.2023 by which IA No.1909 of 2023 filed by the Appellant has been rejected. In the IA, the Appellant has prayed following reliefs:-
"a. "To direct Respondent to restore the supply of electricity immediately.
b. To squash and set aside the claim of Rs.13,30,217/- from March 2021 to February 2023 and the subsequent bills raised, without power being made available, till the date the respondents restores power.
c. To direct the respondent to refund Rs.1,92,600/- being the amount paid by applicant for the period of disconnection from 05.10.2020 to 28.02.2021 during the CIRP period.
d. To direct the Respondents to refrain from initiating such as removing meter or r initiating any proceedings any coercive action.
e. The Respondents may be levied punishment as per the provisions of Section 74(2) as considered appropriate by the Hon'ble Tribunal.
f. Any other order as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit under the circumstances."
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 350 of 2024 & I.A. No. 1186 of 2024 3
2. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has observed that the Appellant may pursue their remedy before the Appellate Authority of the Department. The issues raised by the Appellant are with regard to issue of billing during the CIRP period, refund of the amount and reduction of the load and not to charge the bill when the electricity was disconnected.
3. We are of the view that for all said issues the Adjudicating Authority has rightly relegated to the Appellant to seek remedy before the Appellate Authority of the Department. It is open for the Appellant to file appropriate appeal/representation with regard to grievance raised before the appropriate Authority and it is for the said Authority to consider and take appropriate decision.
4. With these observations, we dispose of the Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 350 of 2024 & I.A. No. 1186 of 2024
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free