Madras High Court
The National Sewing Thread Co.Ltd vs The Superintending Engineer
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.A.No.322 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 08.07.2025
Delivered on 24.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.No.322 of 2025
The National Sewing Thread Co.Ltd.
(Post Insolvency Resolution under IBC)
represented by its Successful Resolution Applicant
Mr.B.Venkatesan,
11, Venugopala Pillai Road,
Chidambaram-608 001.
.... Appellant
Versus
1. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Capper Hills, Cuddalore-607 001.
2. The Assistant Electrical Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Anantheeswaran Koil Street,
Chidambaram-608 001.
.... Respondents
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm )
W.A.No.322 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying
to set aside the order dated 07.06.2024 made in W.P.No.29845 of 2022.
For appellant(s): Mr.OM Prakash, Sr.Counsel for
M/s.Ramalingam Associates
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG,
assisted by
Mr.V.Venkataseshaiya
JUDGMENT
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.) This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.29845 of 2022.
2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:
2.2 The appellant herein is a Public Limited Company, against which, proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) were moved before the National Company Law Tribunal NCLT), Chennai by its financial creditor, M/s.Indian Overseas Bank, for initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The statutorily 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 prescribed course of action commenced and an Interim Resolution Professions (IRP) was appointed, Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted and it approved the resolution plan submitted to it and on 06.12.2021, it was approved by the NCLT.
2.3 According to the appellant, it had already gone through CIRP and as per the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT, all the outstanding dues of the company not falling within the purview of the Resolution Plan stood extinguished.
2.4 While so, pursuant to the Resolution Plan, on 24.2.2022, the appellant applied for temporary electricity service connection. However, TANGEDCO, the respondent herein, declined to provide the electricity service connection on the ground that the appellant requires to pay the arrears of electricity consumption charges, to a sum of Rs.32,85,061/- and issued a demand notice, dated 1901.2022. Challenging the same, the appellant moved a Writ Petition before a Writ Court.
3. The Writ Petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter affidavit, stating that even prior to the commencement of 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 insolvency proceedings, the respondents /TANGEDCO sent a demand notice dated 19.01.2022 to the appellant to pay the arrears of the electricity outstanding dues, but the appellant has not come forward to pay the same and hence, the electricity service was disconnected and hence, the statutory dues cannot be ignored totally while formulation of the resolution plan. It is further stated that the order of moratorium came into effect from 29.08.2019, while the default due to non-payment was much earlier (i.e.) from 2019. Further, Section 14(2) of the IBC does not provide any exclusion or exemption from making statutory payment which are admittedly due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the respondents herein. It is further stated that the appellant company was not revived by the third party, but it is the very same person who were former Directors of the appellant company and they were well aware of the outstanding dues payable to the respondents.
4. The learned Judge, on consideration of the rival contentions and on goring through the entire records, by a detailed order, dated 07.06.2024, dismissed the Writ Petition.
4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025
5. Questioning the order of the learned Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein.
6. Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, exercising its power under section 31 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is binding on all stakeholders and no creditor including Government Authority with respect of statutory dues can initiate legal proceedings in respect of their claims not provided in the resolution plan and since the respondent, as an Operational Creditor during the Resolution Process in CIRP proceedings, has not made its claim and when once the Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT, all the unclaimed outstanding liability of the appellant company, including the present liability of the appellant company towards outstanding dues payable to the respondent had extinguished and thereby, the demand notice, dated 19.01.2022 impugned in the Writ Petition cannot be sustained. However, without appreciating the preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt.Ltd. Versus 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 Edelweiss Arc. Co.” reported in (2021) 9 SCC 657 and “Coc of Essar Steel Indian Ltd. versus Sathish Kumar Gupta and Others” reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1478, the learned single Judge has erroneously held that the appellant cannot resile from its obligation to pay the respondents on the findings of the aforesaid principles and attributing a reason of non- disclosure of liability to TANGEDCO. He would also contend that in fact, the respondents herein were specifically informed to file their claim in a specific format (Form-B) on 05.12.2019, but the respondents failed to file their claim and now when the successful Resolution Applicant applied for providing electricity service connection, the respondents demanded the appellant to make the payment of outstanding dues by ignoring the Insolvency Proceedings and the final approval of the resolution plan granted by the NCLT. He would also contend that the learned Judge ought not to have brushed aside the binding principles includes clean state theory enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments which squarely fortifies the case of the appellants in seeking to judiciously implement the resolution plan and to ensure the appellant is back on track. With these contentions, the learned Senior counsel would 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 urge this Court to set aside the order of the learned single Judge as well as the demand notice impugned in the Writ Petition.
7. Per contra, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Addl.Advocate General for the respondents would contend that pursuant to the application filed by the appellant for providing electricity service connection, the appellant was issued demand notice, calling upon it to pay the outstanding arrears of Rs.32,86,061/-, but the appellant has not paid the same till date. As per the norms of Regulation 17 of the Electricity Supply Code, the appellant cannot escape from the payment of the outstanding dues to get fresh electricity service connection. He pointed out that even prior to the commencement of Insolvency proceedings, due to non-payment of the outstanding dues, the electricity service connection provided to the appellant was disconnected on 08.08.2019. Therefore, unless the dues are paid, the appellant is not entitled to get fresh service connection. He would submit that a resolution plan which has been approved by the adjudicating authority, without including the statutory dues payable to the operational creditors, is not binding on the State. In this regard, he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 Court in “State Tax Officer versus Rainbow Papers Limited” (2023) 9 SCC 54, wherein, it has been held that if the resolution plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government of a legal authority altogether, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the resolution plan. Therefore, the learned Addl.Advocate General contended that clean state theory does not apply to the appellant company as only a public notice was sent inviting claims for other operational and financial creditors, but TANGEDCO did not receive any private notice or intimation from IRP and further the appellant company was not revived by the third party, but by the very same persons who were former Directors of the appellant company and they were well aware of the outstanding dues payable to the respondents, but the outstanding dues payable to the TANGEDCO towards electricity charges were not disclosed in any part of the CIRP and they made TANGEDCO as an undisclosed operational creditor. He pointed out that the learned single Judge has rightly observed that one who owes a duty to disclose, cannot take advantage of one's own suppression of information. With these contentions, the learned Addl.Advocate General sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and perused the entire materials available on record.
9. The appellant company fell into debt trap, which led to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at the instance of its financial creditor, M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, during the course of the proceedings, Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) came to be appointed and also Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted. Later, the CoC approved the Resolution Plan placed before it and the same was approved by the NCLT vide order dated 06.12.2021. As against this, no appeal was preferred and thereby, it has become final. According to the appellant, on approval of the Resolution Plan, all the outstanding dues payable by the appellant company for the period upto the effective date including statutory dues, shall be deemed to have been waived/write off/extinguished, in other words, no amount shall be payable by the appellant company. 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025
10. While so, the appellant is aggrieved over the demand notice, dated 19.01.2022 issued by the TANGEDCO, the respondent herein, calling upon the appellant to pay the outstanding arrears of electricity consumption charges to a tune of Rs.32,86,061/-, which according to the appellant, has been virtually extinguished in view of the approval of the Resolution Plan by CoC and the NCLT.
11. However, it is pertinent to note that even prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan, the respondent/TANGEDCO has taken steps to recover the electricity dues and since the same were not paid, they disconnected the HT service connection of the appellant company on 08.08.2019. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant Company's suspended Directors, namely, Mr.Venkatesan and Mr.B.Ramachandran had proposed the Resolution Plan by way of fresh funding from their own sources and sale of non-core assets and though initial resolution plan was rejected, however, later on submission of revised resolution plan, it was approved by the CoC and confirmed by the NCLT on 06.12.2021. Therefore, being the former Directors of the appellant company, they were well aware of the dues 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 payable towards electricity consumption charges and disconnection of the service connection due to non-payment of the arrears. But, the arrears of electricity dues payable to the respondent/TANGEDCO were not disclosed and suppressed by the appellant company and thereby, the Resolution Plan which came to be approved by the adjudicating authority without including the statutory dues payable to the operational creditor, i.e. TANGEDCO, is not binding on the State. In fact, as per Section 19 of the IBC, the Corporate debtor shall extend all assistance and co-operation to the Interim Resolution Professional to prepare the assets and liability statement of the corporate debtor. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the appellant to make full and complete disclosure of all the assets and liabilities by its suspended board. In the present case, the appellant being MSME company, themselves participated in the CIRP and turned out to become successful Resolution Applicant. However, the dues that are payable to the respondent were not submitted and decided by the Resolution Professional and conveniently escaped from their liability. As per Section 30(2) of the IBC, the Resolution Professional shall examine each resolution plan received by him and confirm that each resolution plan provides for payment of debts of 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 operation of creditors. Therefore, if resolution plan excludes statutory dues payable to Government, it cannot be said to be in conformity to the provisions of the IBC and if such plan is approved by the adjudicating authority without including the statutory dues payable to the operational creditors, is not binding on the government.
12. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State Tax Officer versus Rainbow Papers Limited” reported in (2023) 9 SCC 545. The relevant portion is extracted as under:
“45. As rightly argued by the learned Solicitor General, there can be no question of acceptance of a Resolution Plan that is not in conformity with the statutory provisions of Section 31(2) of the IBC. Section 30(2) (b) of the IBC, casts an obligation on the Resolution Professional to examine each resolution plan received by him and to confirm that such resolution plan provides for the payment of dues of operational creditors, as specified by the Board, which shall not be less than the amount to be paid to such creditors, in the event of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section 53, or the amount that would have been paid to such operational creditors, if the amount to be distributed under the resolution plan had been distributed in accordance with the order of priority in Sub-section 2 of Section 53, whichever was higher, and provided for the payment of debts of financial creditors, who did not vote 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 in favour of the resolution plan, in such manner as might be specified by the Board.
46. Under Section 31 of the IBC, a resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors under Sub-
Section (4) of Section 30 might be approved by the Adjudicating Authority only if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors meets the requirements as referred to in Sub Section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC. The condition precedent for approval of a resolution plan is that the resolution plan should meet the requirements of Sub-Section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC.
47. In “Ebix Singapore Private Limited v.
Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another” (2022) 2 SCC 401, this Court affirmed that Resolution Plans would have to conform to the statutory provisions of the IBC, and held: -
“147. In terms of Regulation 39(4), the RP shall endeavour to submit the resolution plan approved by the CoC before the adjudicating authority for its approval under Section 31 IBC, at least fifteen days before the maximum period for completion of CIRP. Section 31(1) provides that the adjudicating authority shall approve the resolution plan if it is satisfied that it complies with the requirements set out under Section 30(2) IBC. Essentially, the adjudicating authority functions as a check on the role of the RP to ensure compliance with Section 30(2) IBC and satisfies itself that the plan approved by the CoC can be effectively implemented as provided under the proviso to Section 31(1) IBC. Once the resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, it becomes binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan...”.
48. A resolution plan which does not meet the requirements of Sub Section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC, would be invalid and not binding on the Central Government, any State Government, any statutory or other authority, any financial creditor, or other creditor to whom a debt in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force is owed. Such a resolution plan would not bind the State when there are outstanding statutory dues of a Corporate Debtor.
49. Section 31(1) of the IBC which empowers the Adjudicating Authority to approve a Resolution Plan uses the expression “it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding...” subject to the condition that the Resolution Plan meets the requirements of subsection (2) of Section 30. If a Resolution Plan meets the requirements, the Adjudicating Authority is mandatorily required to approve the Resolution Plan. On the other hand, Sub- section (2) of Section 31, which enables the Adjudicating Authority to reject a Resolution Plan which does not conform to the requirements referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 31, uses the expression “may”.
50. Ordinarily, the use of the word “shall” connotes a mandate/binding direction, while use of the expression “may” connotes discretion. If statute says, a person may do a thing, he may also not do that thing.
Even if Section 31(2) is construed to confer discretionary power on the Adjudicating Authority to reject a Resolution Plan, it has to be kept in mind that discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, whimsically or without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances which require discretion to be exercised one way or the other.
14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025
51. If the established facts and circumstances require discretion to be exercised in a particular way, discretion has to be exercised in that way. If a Resolution Plan is ex facie not in conformity with law and/or the provisions of IBC and/or the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, the Resolution would have to be rejected. It is also a well settled principle of interpretation that the expression “may”, if circumstances so demand can be construed as “Shall”.
52. If the Resolution Plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or a legal authority, altogether, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the Resolution Plan.”
13. Therefore, it is settled law that if a resolution plan which is ex facie not in conformity with law and/or the provisions of the IBC and/or the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, such Resolution is liable to be rejected. If the resolution plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or a legal authority altogether, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the resolution plan. But in the present case, since the crown debts that are payable to the respondent not even included in the resolution process and got approved the resolution plan and placed the same before the Adjudicating Authority, which confirmed the same. 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of “Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others” reported in (2020) 8 SCC 531 and “Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited” reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 313 has enunciated the ‘clean slate theory’ (CST), holding that a successful resolution applicant cannot be burdened with undecided claims or claims not included in a resolution plan. However, it is significant to note that under the IBC, even a sub-judice right to payment against a corporate debtor is classified as a ‘claim’ and must be filed in the CIR Process within the stipulated time lines. In terms of the clean slate doctrine, only the claims filed during the CIR Process are considered in a resolution plan. In the present case, admittedly, the outstanding dues payable by the appellant company were not brought under CIR process. The clean slate theory will be applicable only to a successful third party resolution applicant, but in the present case, the same set of Directors of the corporate debtor continued to be in the management and revived their own company by way of resolution plan without disclosing the 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 outstanding dues payable to the TANGEDCO. The learned Judge has elaborately discussed this aspect and observed in para 49.2 as under:
49.2 In ascertaining how CST will apply vis~à~vis an undisclosed creditor is concerned, irrespective of whether the corporate debtor is a MSME or not, its suspended Board has an obligation to make a complete disclosure. See paragraph 36 above. This will now produce two consequences:
a) If after a successful completion of a resolution process, the same promoters or substantially the same set of directors of the corporate debtor continue to be in the management, then CST will not apply to forfeit the rights of the undisclosed creditors when the suspended Board had an opportunity to disclose all its creditors during the resolution process. One who owes a duty to disclose cannot take advantage of one?s own suppression of information.
b) If after a successful resolution process, a third party resolution applicant takes over the corporate debtor, then CST will apply to extinguish the rights of the undisclosed creditors but only against the successful resolution applicant or its successors~in~interest, and not against the promoters or the suspended board of directors of the corporate debtor. It should not be forgotten that CST is a judicial coinage to protect the third party successful resolution applicant from the uncertainties of future claims, and not invented to protect the fraud and suppression of the suspended board of the corporate debtor.
49.3 In all the cases, where the undisclosed creditors' rights are kept alive against the erstwhile promoters or board of directors of the corporate debtor, as indicated in paragraph 49.2(b) above, the following aspects go with it as a backup measure to ensure its 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 working:
a) The immediate consequence is that each of the promoters or the directors in the suspended board of the corporate debtor shall be personally liable, jointly and severally, to the undisclosed creditors ?
both financial and operational, and they can be proceeded against both for civil and criminal liability. And, none of them shall be let go anywhere near the shelter which Sec.32~A of the IBC provides, for the extinguishment of criminal liability contemplated under the said provision is not intended for those who conspire to defeat the intent of the IBC, play on fraud on the statute, and abuse its process. Indeed even Sec.32~A is intended to operate only ?if the resolution plan results in change in the management or control of the corporate debtor? and to protect a third party resolution applicant who is unrelated to the erstwhile managers of the corporate debtor.
b) None in the suspended board of the corporate debtor shall be granted a sanctuary behind the jurisprudential principle of corporate personality. After all, when the corporate debtor was in crisis and was one step short of going into liquidation when it was facing a resolution process, the jurisprudential difference between the company and its shareholders shall necessarily melt to pave the way for enthroning justice for the undisclosed creditors. Corporate veil is not an impregnable iron curtain to interfere with the court's power to lift it when motivated acts of fraud or unfairness attempt to hide behind it, more so, when such acts prejudice the interests of the innocent third parties.” (m) What the Petitioner may anticipate
50. Is the writing on the wall for the petitioner?
Obviously yes, as it cannot now resile from its obligation to pay the TANGEDCO. The reasons are twofold:
18/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 First, it is a MSME corporate debtor, which participated in the resolution process, came up with a successful resolution plan and chose not to disclose its liability to the TANGEDCO. And, today the same promoters continue in the management. They fit in perfectly with a situation contemplated in paragraph 49.2(a) above.
(Emphasis supplied) Therefore, the clean slate theory does not apply to the facts of the present case. In similar writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.14198 of 2022 (M/s.Empee Distilleries Ltd. Versus The Superintending Engineer and others), Madurai Bench of this Court dealt with the identical issued involved in the present case and held in para 7 as under:
“7. But that is not the end of the matter. While TANGEDCO may not be able to enforce its claims, it can still decline to grant fresh electricity service connection for the premises in question or restore the earlier connection. It is true that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts duty on every distribution licensee to give supply of electricity on request. But this provision has to be read along with Sections 44 to 50. Regulation 17(9) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 reads as follows :
... .... ..... ......
The aforesaid amendment to the Supply Code was inserted with effect from 13.04.2011. As per Section 3(6) of the IBC, “claim” means right to payment or right to remedy for breach of contract. Even if the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner anchored on Ghanashyam Mishra and Ruchi Soya are accepted, the result can only be that TANGEDCO cannot go after the 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 petitioner to enforce its claim. But when the petitioner comes to TANGEDCO and seeks grant of fresh connection or restoration of supply, TANGEDCO can say sorry. This will not amount to enforcing its claim. It is also not a remedy for breach of contract. TANGEDCO would merely be acting in consonance with the statutory provisions governing it. Such a reading of the statutory scheme of the Electricity Act and the regulations framed thereunder in no way devalues the overriding effect of the Code. Once bitten, twice shy. Court cannot compel a creditor who has already had a massive hair-cut to continue to show his head to the defaulter.”
15. The appellant company seeks for fresh connection/restoration of service connection on the ground that the outstanding dues payable by the appellant company to TANGEDCO got extinguished by virtue of approved resolution plan. According to the respondent, already High Tension Supply service connection was available, but it was disconnected on 08.08.2019 due to non-payment of outstanding dues even prior to initiation of CIR process and to restore the same, the appellant company has to necessary pay the outstanding dues as per Regulation 17(9) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, which reads as under:
“17(9). “In case of service connections in a premises, which have been disconnected / dismantled for defaults in payment of dues whatsoever and if such service connections are to be reconnected or new service 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 connections are to be obtained by other persons in such premises either by purchase or transfer or lease basis, the Distribution Licensee shall reconnect such service connections or effect new service connections, as the case may be, in such premises only after payment of dues attributed to such premises by the applicant:
b) .... ... ......
c) .... .... ......”
16. The appellant company sought for supply of electricity to their premises in respect of which, already, there was HT service connection, which was disconnected due to non-payment of outstanding dues.
Therefore, seeking service connection for the very same premises, it can be either regarded as new connection or re-connection/restoration. Then, as per Regulation extracted above, new connection or re- connection/restoration can be effected only after making payment of dues attributed to such premises by the appellant company. Even assuming for a moment that by virtue of approved resolution plan, the outstanding dues of the company got extinguished, it may be for the TANGEDCO either to challenge or abide by the resolution plan without resorting to recovery. It appears that the respondent after disconnecting the service connection owing to non payment of dues, the respondent/TANGEDCO did not resort 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025 to recover the dues. But when the very same set of management, came forward to get the service connection restored for the very same premises, then, they have to necessarily discharge the statutory obligation as per the Regulation which insists upon payment of outstanding dues. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim restoration/reconnection of an electricity connection solely on the ground of an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) since the approved resolution plan only settles pre-Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) debts and any new connection or restoration/reconnection requires fresh payment of charges and outstanding dues as per the Regulation. Even the respondent/TANGEDCO cannot act and provide such restoration/reconnection or new service connection contrary to the statutory Regulations. Hence, the appellant company is liable to pay the outstanding dues to the respondent/TANGEDCO either for getting new connection or restoration of the electricity service connection for the premises, in respect of which, already there was a service connection.
22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm ) W.A.No.322 of 2025
17. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
(J.N.B.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)
24.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
suk
To
1. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Capper Hills, Cuddalore-607 001.
2. The Assistant Electrical Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Anantheeswaran Koil Street,
Chidambaram-608 001.
23/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm )
W.A.No.322 of 2025
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
suk
Judgment in
in W.A.No.322 of 2025
24.09.2025
24/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 05:38:02 pm )