National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Damodar Valley Corporation vs Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited on 1 October, 2021
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2020
(Arising out of Impugned Order dated passed by the Adjudicating
Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata in CA (IB) No.
1271/KB/2019 in CP (IB) No. 596/KB/2017.)
In the matter of
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