SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(HP) 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Rajpur Hydro Power Private Limited and another - Plaintiffs
Versus
M/s Gangdari Hydro Power Private Ltd. - Defendant
OMP No.389 of 2020 in Civil Suit No.87 of 2020
Decided On : 08-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs :Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate.
For the Defendant :Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Naresh K. Verma, Advocate.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code - Sections 9,100,, 11(d) 86, 86(1)(f) 79, 86(1)(f), 145, 174 and 175 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Proprietorship concern - Successful resolution applicant - common Transmission Line - Whether plaintiffs and defendant are debtor and creditor, or co-owners, or partners, or co-users, or parties in contract - whether demand of defendant is barred under the Code or not. The Code does not restrict, bar or prohibit adjudication of such dispute in collateral or other proceedings - whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not - whether plaintiffs are entitled to use Transmission Line without paying the liability accrued on the basis of Joint Evacuation Agreement for approval of resolution plan, or defendant has a right to prohibit/restrain - Plaintiff Hydro Power Private Limited company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 referred to as Companies Act engaged in development and construction of Hydro Energy Power Project plaintiff Energy Enterprises is a Proprietorship concern and is successful resolution applicant - Respective small hydro projects and evacuating power through a common Transmission Line opening para of Joint Evacuation Agreement – Held, Transmission Line on payment of cost of construction, but for failure of payment of cost of construction, plaintiffs shall have no right to use said Transmission Line -Plaintiffs are claiming for mandate of specific performance in their favour on basis of Joint Evacuation Agreement, but without performing their part agreed to be performed in said agreement - These issues are legal, commercial and contractual, which can be decided on basis of documents only in light of provisions of law applicable and for adjudication thereof State Commission or Arbitrator so appointed by the State Commission - statement in plaint, along with documents filed therewith as well as relevant case law as discussed suit appears to be barred by Electricity Act, 2003 - Application stands disposed of

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Facts, relevant for adjudication of this application, emerging from plaint are as under:-

A. Plaintiff No.1 Rajpura Hydro Power Private Limited (‘RHPPL’ for short), a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Companies Act), engaged in development and construction of Hydro Energy Power Project at Nogli Khud, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as Hydro Power Project), whereas plaintiff No.2 Dolphin Energy Enterprises (‘DEE’ for short) is a Proprietorship concern and is the successful resolution applicant whose resolution plan for RHPPL has been approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’ for short) by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh (‘NCLT’ for short) vide its orders dated 27.9.2018. In pursuant thereto DEE has acquired the ownership, control and management of RHPPL.

B. Defendant M/s Gangdari Hydro Power Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’) is also a company incorporated under Companies Act, which has set up a Hydro Electric Project, namely Jongni (SHP).

C. RHPPL and defendant have entered into a Joint Evacuation Agreement dated 11.4.2013, for the purpose of pooling the power generated at their respective small hydro projects and evacuating power through a common Transmission Line. In the opening para of Joint Evacuation Agreement, status of plaintiff and defendant has been specifically mentioned as ‘Generating Companies’ within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short ‘the Act’).

D. A dispute has arisen between the plaintiffs and defendant with reference to an amount claimed by defendant payable by plaintiffs, towards cost of construction of Transmission Line to be used jointly for evacuation of power and cost for operation and maintenance thereof, to be shared and borne by plaintiffs as agreed in terms and conditions of Joint Evacuation Agreement, whereupon defendant has sent a letter/Demand Notice dated 27.10.2020 to plaintiff No. 1 RHPPL, asking for payment of `6.48 crores and interest thereon from plaintiffs, with threat of termination of Joint Evacuation Agreement, if amount is not paid.

E. On 12.4.2017, Seashell Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (‘Seashell’ for short), i.e. a Financial Creditor of RHPPL, had preferred an application under Section 7 of Code, before Adjudicating Authority, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIR Process’ for short) against RHPPL.

F. On 11.7.2017, the NCLT initiated CIR Process against RHPPL and Resolution Professional was appointed, who had issued a public announcement for submission of claim(s), in terms of provisions of Code. As per plaint, despite having knowledge of CIR Process, defendant did not submit any claim before the Resolution Professional. Thereafter, DEE had submitted the resolution plan in respect of RHPPL, which was approved by NCTL, vide order dated 27.9.2018, under the Code and on such approval, the approved resolution plan became binding to all stakeholders, including defendant, and since then, the approved resolution plan has been implemented and RHPPL (plaintiff No. 1) has been duly acquired by DEE (plaintiff No.2). It is claim of the plaintiff that liability to pay the amount, which is being claimed by defendant on the basis of Joint Evacuation Agreement, is not part of approved resolution plan and, therefore, defendant has lost its right to claim the said amount.

G. As per plaintiffs, Demand Notice, dated 27.10.2020, issued by defendant raising claims for an amount of `6,48 crores for a period prior to CIR Process with threat to terminate the Joint Evacuation Agreement on failure of payment, has constrained them to file present suit, for passing an injunction prohibiting the defendant from terminating the Joint Evacuation Agreement and for specific performance thereof.

2. After service, defendant has preferred to file this application for rejecting the paint, in terms of

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top