1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024 & I.A. No. 981, 982 of
2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Yarn Sales Corporation through Sh. Rajesh …Appellant
Kumar, partner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

…Respondents
Present:
For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Johri, Adv.
For Respondent : Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Mr. Prashant
Kapila, Adv. for R1
Mr. Karanveer Jindal, Mr. Gautam Singh,
Adv. for R2

JUDGMENT

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain:

This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.12.2023

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench) by which application bearing I.A.

No. 962 of 2022 filed in CP (IB) No. 160/Chd/Pb/2018 by the

Appellant under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 (in short ‘Code’) has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of this case are that Gian Chand & Sons Pvt.

Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) was admitted to liquidation on

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 2

05.08.2019 and Respondent No. 2 was appointed as the

Liquidator.

3. Respondent No. 2 invited claims pending against the

Corporate Debtor. Respondent No. 1 submitted its claim of Rs.

34,59,859/-, outstanding electricity dues relating to account no.

3002810493 for its building property located at Bajra Road

Village Bajra, Rahon Road, Ludhiana.

4. Respondent No. 2 admitted the claim of Rs. 34,59,859/-.

Respondent No. 2 made public announcement for sale of assets

of the Corporate Debtor by way of auction on 03.02.2022 and

auction took place on 18.02.2022 through the e-auction platform

of M/s C1 India Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant was the highest bidder

for the Land measuring 5747.50 sq. yards at Bajra Road Village

Bajra Rahon Road, Ludhiana alongwith building. Accordingly, the

said property was sold to the Appellant and on payment of the

entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,30,00,000/-, the sale certificate

was issued by Respondent No. 2 to the Appellant on 22.03.2022.

The property in question had an electricity connection bearing

Account No. 3002810493 with Respondent No. 1 which was

disconnected due to the non-payment of electricity dues.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 3

5. The Appellant after purchasing the property, made a

representation to Respondent No. 1 on 02.04.2022 for releasing

the electricity connection and requested Respondent No. 1 to

settle all its pending dues with Respondent No. 2. The Appellant

sent an application dated 12.05.2022 for release of fresh

electricity connection of 99KW in its name. Respondent No. 1 vide

its letter dated 20.05.2022 informed the Appellant that their

outstanding dues towards the connection installed at said

premises are Rs. 70,17,865/-which has to be cleared before

the new connection is given. The Appellant is stated to have

replied to the letter dated 20.05.2022 on 20.06.2022 but there

was no response.

6. The Appellant filed I.A. No. 962 of 2022 before the

Adjudicating Authority for the issuance of necessary direction for

the release of new electricity connection in its name and setting

aside the outstanding raised by Respondent No. 1 through letter

dated 22.05.2022, pending towards Corporate Debtor against its

electricity connection at the premises situated on Khata No.

210/215, bearing Khasra No. 51/11/2-12-13 in Hadbast No. 76

situated in village Bazra Tehsil East Ludhiana, Punjab.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 4

7. In this application, Respondent No. 1 filed reply dated

01.02.2023 in which it was stated that the sale conducted by

Respondent No. 2 was a simple stand alone asset sale and not a

sale of the CD as a going concern. It was also stated that as per

the sale certificate, the liquidator is not responsible for any

shortfall or defect or shortcoming in the said land or title of the

said land and that all past, present and future statutory and

other liabilities whether due or overdue by whatever name being

called including electricity dues are to borne by the successful

bidder. It was also stated that the sale of the land was on ‘as is

where is basis, as is what is basis, whatever there is basis, no

recourse basis’.

8. Respondent No. 2 alleged before the Adjudicating Authority

that dues of Respondent No. 1, during the CIRP period have been

paid in full and there is a recoverable of Rs. 4,51,293/- by

Respondent No. 2 from Respondent No. 1 for which a separate

application has already been filed by him bearing I.A No. 1505 of

2022.

9. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application while

referring to the provisions in the sale certificate dated

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 5

22.03.2022. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced also

for a ready reference:-

“WHEREAS the said Land of Lot No. 1 of GCSPL has been

sold on "As is where is basis" "As is what is basis".
"Whatever there is basis" "No recourse basis in which
Liquidator is not responsible for any shortfall or defect or
shortcoming in the said Land or title of the said land and
that all past, present or future statutory or other
liabilities, whether due or overdue, by whatever name
being called, including but not limited to taxes /
demands/ claims/ maintenance fee / electricity dues /
water charges / local authority dues / State Government
dues / dues of any agency of State or District, etc.,
outstanding as on date or yet to fall due in respect of the
said land should be ascertained and borne by the
successful bidder”.

10. It has been held that the since the assets have been taken

over “as is where is basis, as is what is basis, whatever there is

basis, no recourse basis”. Therefore, liabilities towards

outstanding electricity dues having been waived because of

liquidation is not tenable under the law.

11. While assailing the impugned order, Counsel for the

Appellant has submitted that pre-CIRP dues cannot be fastened

upon the auction purchaser. It is submitted that the concept of

clean slate purchase is recognized in the Code. The Appellant

only purchased part of the property/assets of the CD and not the

company and thus the liabilities of the company do not become

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 6

liabilities of the auction purchaser. It is further submitted that

Respondent No. 1 had participated in the Insolvency process

while submitting its claim in the liquidation process and cannot

make recoveries from the auction purchaser de hors the

mechanism provided under the Code. In support of her

submissions, she has relied upon a decision of this Court

rendered in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1355 of 2022 titled as ‘Chinar Steel

Segments Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Samir Kumar Agarwal’. It is

submitted that once a claim is dealt with under liquidation

process, such claim gets extinguished and the creditor cannot be

allowed to renew the claim and insist for payment of entire dues.

It is submitted that in the case of Chinar Steel Segments Centre

Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) it has been held that the arrears of the

electricity dues cannot be insisted upon for issuing a new

connection. She has further submitted that even if the e-auction

notice/sale certificate provides that dues are to be paid by the

auction purchaser, the same cannot override the applicable law.

In this regard, she has relied upon a decision of this Court

rendered in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Vs. HSA Traders through Sole Proprietor & Ors., CA (AT) (Ins) No.

527 of 2023. She has further submitted that in the case of

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 7

Paschimanchal (Supra) it has been held that Section 238 of the

Code overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 despite

the latter containing two specific provisions which open with non-

obstante clauses (Section 173 and 174).

12. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has

submitted that the distribution licensee has a right to recover

electricity dues from the auction purchaser under the provisions

of the Electricity Act, 2003 and has relied upon a decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C Ninan Vs. Kerala State

Electricity Board & Ors. 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 227. He has further

submitted that there was outstanding dues of the CD in

liquidation and since the property has been sold on “as is where

is basis, as is what is basis, whatever there is basis, no recourse

basis” and the certificate of sale dated 22.03.2022 categorically

provided that all past, present and future property liabilities

including electricity dues outstanding as on date shall be borne

by the successful bidder, the impugned order does not suffer

from any error in which it has been held that the liabilities to

pay of the outstanding electricity dues is of the Appellant being

the successful bidder. He has also submitted that the judgment

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 8

in the case of K.C. (Supra) has not been considered in the case of

Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Supra).

13. In rebuttal, Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the

only judgment relied upon by Respondent is in the case of K.C.

(Supra) which was in respect of a sale under the SARFESAI Act in

which it has been held that the Electricity Act would apply

whereas it has been held by this Court that the provisions of the

Code override the Electricity Act, therefore, it is of no help to

Respondent No. 1.

14. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

15. The point involved is short and simple as to whether the

Appellant being the purchaser of the asset, in liquidation, is

liable to pay past dues of the electricity of the CD, for the purpose

of obtaining a new electricity connection on payment of statutory

dues except for the past dues?

16. The aforesaid question has been duly answered by this

Court in the case of Chinar Steel Segments Centre Pvt. Ltd.

(Supra) in which the following observations have been made:-

“37. The issues raised in the present Appeal are fully

covered in favour of the Appellant by a recent judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.09.2023 in Civil
Appeal No.5556 of 2023- “Tata Power Western Odisha

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 9

Distribution Limited (TPWODL) & Anr. vs. Jagannath

Sponge Private Limited”. Appellant in the above case
was also insisting for payment of arrears of electricity
dues. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the earlier
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Raman
Ispat Private Limited & Ors.- 2023 SCC Online SC 842”
and has also noted the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “Embassy Property Developments
Pvt. Ltd.” and distinguished the same. It is useful to
extract the entire judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 11.09.2023, which is to the following
effect:-
“In our opinion, the legal issue is covered by the
judgment of this Court in “Paschimanchal Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Raman Ispat Private Limited and
Others”1 and the order of this Court in “Southern
Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh
Limited vs. Gavi Siddeswara Steels (India) Pvt. Ltd. and
Another.”2 The appellant – Tata Power Western Odisha
Distribution Limited cannot insist on payment of
arrears, which have to be paid in terms of the waterfall
mechanism, for grant of an electricity connection.
However, the successful resolution applicant will have
to comply with the other requirements for grant of
electricity connection. The clean slate principle would
stand negated if the successful resolution applicant is
asked to pay the arrears payable by the corporate
debtor for the grant of an electricity connection in
her/his name.
In “Embassy Property Developments Private Limited vs.
State of Karnataka and Others”3, this Court clarified
that a decision by public authority etc. may fall within
the jurisdiction of the tribunals constituted under the
Code, where the issue relates to or arises out of the
dues payable to an operational or financial creditor, by
observing:

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 10

“37...It will be a different matter, if proceedings under

statutes like Income Tax Act had attained finality,
fastening a liability upon the corporate debtor, since, in
such cases, the dues payable to the Government would
come within the meaning of the expression “operational
debt” under Section 5(21), making the Government an
“operational creditor” in terms of Section 5(2). The
moment the dues to the Government are crystallised
and what remains is only payment, the claim of the
Government will have to be adjudicated and paid only
in a manner prescribed in the resolution plan as
approved by the adjudicating authority, namely, the
NCLT.”
The above-quoted observations from Embassy Property
Developments Private Limited (supra) would confer
jurisdiction on the tribunal constituted under the Code
insofar as the appellant – Tata Power Western Odisha
Distribution Limited is insisting on payment of the
dues of the corporate debtor for restoration/grant of
the electricity connection. The dues of the corporate
debtor have to be paid in the manner prescribed in the
resolution plan, as approved by the adjudicating
authority. The resolution plan is approved when it is in
accord with the provision of the Code. Thus, the issue
of corporate debtor’s dues falls within the fold of the
phrase ‘arising out of or in relation to insolvency
resolution’ under section 60(5)(c) of the Code.
Therefore, we do not find any good ground and reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment(s)/order(s)
and hence, the present appeals are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
38. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “Tata Power Western Odisha
Distribution Limited” (supra), submission advanced on
behalf of the Respondent- Damodar Valley Corporation
cannot be accepted. The Respondent cannot insist that
unless the arrears of the electricity dues which dues

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 11

were payable by the Corporate Debtor prior to

disconnection are paid by the Appellant only then
communication can be issued. The stand taken by the
Respondent is contrary to the law laid down by this
Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
noted above.
39. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are
satisfied that the Adjudicating Authority committed
error in rejecting IA No. 984 of 2021 as not
maintainable. We hold that the application is fully
maintainable under Section 60(5) for the reasons as
indicated above. The Appellant has made out a case for
grant of reliefs as claimed in the application. In result,
we allow the Appeal in following manner:-
The impugned order dated 01.09.2022 is set aside. IA
No.984 of 2021 is allowed. Respondent No.1 to grant
fresh connection of electricity after taking all necessary
charges for fresh connection except outstanding dues
of the Corporate Debtor which stood satisfied and
extinguished as per the liquidation proceedings against
the Corporate Debtor”

17. Similarly, in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitram

Nigam Ltd. (Supra), this Court has reiterated its view that the

past dues cannot be claimed for the purpose of grant of new

electricity connection. In this regard, the following observations

have been made which read as under:-

“17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Tata Power” (Supra)

clearly held that Tata Power cannot insist on payment of
arrears for granting electricity connection. This Tribunal
in “Chinar Steel Segments Centre Pvt. Ltd.” after
noticing the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and
this Tribunal has ultimately allowed the appeal and

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 12

issued directions in Para 39 of the judgment, which are

to the following effect:
“39. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are satisfied
that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in
rejecting IA No. 984 of 2021 as not maintainable. We
hold that the application is fully maintainable under
Section 60(5) for the reasons as indicated above. The
Appellant has made out a case for grant of reliefs as
claimed in the application. In result, we allow the Appeal
in following manner:- The impugned order dated
01.09.2022 is set aside. IA No.984 of 2021 is allowed.
Respondent No.1 to grant fresh connection of electricity
after taking all necessary charges for fresh connection
except outstanding dues of the Corporate Debtor which
stood satisfied and extinguished as per the liquidation
proceedings against the Corporate Debtor”.
18. We, thus, are of the view that submission raised by
learned counsel for the Appellant that Successful
Auction Purchaser was liable to pay the arrears of
electricity dues which were dues of the erstwhile
Corporate Debtor and without payment of said dues
electricity connection cannot be granted are not in
accord with the statutory scheme of IBC. The
Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in
issuing direction in Para 16 of the impugned order, as
extracted above, to energise the electricity connection
without insisting on the payment of pre-CIRP dues. It is
made clear that the Successful Auction Purchaser shall
be liable to pay all dues for getting the new connection
except the arrears of the electricity dues of
Rs.39,15,625/- as was being claimed by the Appellant.”

18. It is pertinent to mention that this Court in the case of

Paschimanchal (Supra) has also made a reference to the same

clause of due diligence which is there in the sale certificate

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 13

issued to the Appellant because in that also the property was

sold on ‘as is where is, as is what is, whatever there is and

without recourse basis’ and framed the question that “electricity

dues of the CD who underwent insolvency resolution

process/liquidation process can still be insisted against the

Successful Resolution Applicant/Successful Auction Purchaser

is not res integra?”. The decision in the case of Telangana State

Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs.

Srigdhaa Beverages, (2020) 6 SCC 404, has also been

distinguished in this case and also observed that:-

“15. In the case of “Chinar Steel Segments Centre Pvt.

Ltd. vs. Samir Kumar Agarwal” (Supra), this Tribunal
has noticed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company
Ltd. & Anr. vs. Srigdhaa Beverages” as well as “Eastern
Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited
vs. Maithan Alloys Limited & Ors.- Company Appeal (AT)
(Ins.) No.961 of 2021” of this Tribunal which judgment
has also been relied by the Adjudicating Authority in the
impugned order. The Judgment of this Tribunal in “Shiv
Shakti Inter Globe Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. KTC Foods Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 650 of
2020” decided on 25.02.2022 also support the
submission made by learned counsel for the
Respondent. This Tribunal took view that when the
Corporate Debtor is sold in the liquidation proceeding,
Corporate Debtor cannot be burdened by any past or
remaining unpaid outstanding liabilities.”

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024

 14

19. The Judgment relied upon by Respondent in the case of

K.C. (Supra) is not applicable because it has not dealt with

Section 238 of the Code which has the overriding effect.

20. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the

considered opinion that there is a patent error in the approach of

the Adjudicating Authority in dismissing the application of the

Appellant, therefore, the present appeal succeeds and the

impugned order is hereby set aside though without any order as

to costs.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain]

Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey]

Member (Technical)

New Delhi

02nd July, 2024

Sheetal

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 292 of 2024