North Eastern Electricity Supply ... vs Supriyo Kumar Chaudhary Resolution ...

IN THE MATTER OF: North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd.(Nesco) ...Appellant

Vs.

Supriyo Kumar Chaudhury, Resolution Professional & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Hasan Murtaza, Mr. Dhirendra Sharma, Advocates Ms. Saroj K.Ray, PCS

For Respondent: Mr. Ojasa Arya, Indranil Ghosh, Mr. Palzar Moktan, Ms. Swati Dalmia, Mr. Chatterjee, Advocates for R1

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

13.01.2022: This appeal has been filed against the order passed

by the Adjudicating Authority dated 26.08.2020 by which order,

the Adjudicating Authority has issued the following direction: -

"a) The Grid Corporation of Orissa

Limited, the Respondent No. 1 and the

Respondent No. 10 are directed to

accept electricity consumption charges

of the Corporate Debtor for the month of

July-August, 2020 after four weeks

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 874 of 2020 1 subject to fees/late fess/surcharges, if

any and shall not disconnect the

electricity supply for arrears of such

payment.

b. The Respondents are directed to act

in accordance with its letter dated 27th

July, 2020 and allowed the application

filed by the corporate debtor for

reduction of the contract demand charge

from 55 MVA to 35 MVA in relation to the

Jaipur plant of the corporate debtor

immediately, and in any case before the

end of this month, as indicated by the

learned counsel for the respondent."

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant fairly submitted that in so

far as the payment of electricity dues are concerned, the Corporate

Debtor is more or less paying the dues regularly. However, he

pointed out that with regard to direction no. 2 regarding direction

of contract demand, charge of 55 MVA to 35 MVA although billing

is being done on the basis of 35 MVA but the certain formalities

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 874 of 2020 2 have not yet been complied with by the Corporate Debtor due to

which no final decision has yet been taken regarding the demand.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent refuted the submission

and pointed out that it was on the statement made by R-2, this

order was passed. She referred to the statement at page 62 of the

Learned Counsel for R-2 which is to the following effect:-

"The learned counsel for the

respondent submits that the

Application of the Petitioner for

reduction of contract demand charge

from 55 MVA to 35 MVA in relation to

Jaipur Plant. Is under active

consideration and it will be decided

within this month, and will be made

effective only from 01.08.2020."

4. Be that as it may, we find that the direction issued by the

Adjudicating Authority as they are issued to protect the Corporate

Debtor who was in insolvency, however, it goes without saying that

if any formalities are required to be complied with, with regard to

load reduction, the same ought to be completed by the Corporate

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 874 of 2020 3 Debtor by following the necessary procedure. We are not entering

into this Appeal as to whether the necessary procedure has been

completed or not because the parties are at dispute on the

aforesaid issue.

5. We, thus, however, of the view that it is open for both the

parties to approach the Adjudicating Authority for issuing any

further direction or application regarding compliance of direction

issued in direction(b), if they are so advised. No further order is

required, this appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)

ss/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 874 of 2020 4