Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1663
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Shri. JYOTI KUMAR TRIPATHI, Shri. RAVICHANDRAN RAMASAMY, JJ
M/s Sri Gomathi Energy Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
I.A.(IBC)/1395/2024 IN TCP/130/IB/CB/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. Kishore Balasubramanian
For the Respondents: Thiru B Vijay
Past dues of a corporate debtor cannot be enforced against a new purchaser post-liquidation, especially when claims are filed belatedly.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) - Liquidation proceedings - Application by purchaser for restoration of power connection - The applicant, having purchased assets of the corporate debtor, sought restoration of electricity connection without payment of past dues, citing legal precedents that limit liability for pre-existing dues post-liquidation - The Tribunal found that past dues cannot hinder the new purchaser's operations as they are not liable for debts incurred prior to acquisition. (Paras 4.11, 4.12, 4.13)
(B) Electricity Tax Act, 2003 - Enforcement of dues - Respondents claimed outstanding dues against the corporate debtor, asserting that the applicant must clear these dues for registration - The Tribunal ruled that the claim was not timely filed and thus not admissible against the applicant. (Paras 4.6, 4.10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant purchased property from the corporate debtor in liquidation but faced obstacles in obtaining electricity connection due to alleged unpaid dues. The Tribunal noted that the sale was conducted under IBC regulations and the claim for dues was belatedly submitted.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal allowed the application, directing restoration of the electricity connection and issuance of a no dues certificate, clarifying that the applicant is responsible for future charges only.
Issues: Whether past electricity dues can be enforced against a purchaser of assets post-liquidation and the validity of the respondents' claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the liquidation sale is completed, past dues cannot be imposed on the new purchaser, especially when claims are not timely filed during the liquidation process.
Result: Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed for restoration of power connection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents assert outstanding dues must be cleared. (Para 3) |
| 3. tribunal discusses background and claims. (Para 4) |
ORDER
This application has been filed by Mr. L.K.Sivaramakrishnan, Liquidator for M/s. Auro Mira Bipower India Private Limited, under 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, seeking the following reliefs, i) Direct the 1st and/ or 2nd respondent to restore the existing power connection to the immovable property purchased by the Applicant from the 4th respondent, by issuing a no-due certificate in respect of the alleged past electricity due within a stipulated time frame, without insisting on the payment of any past dues by the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Auro Mira Bipower India Private Limited.; and ii) Pass any such other order/ direction as deemed appropriate in the fact and circumstances of this case.
2. APPLICANT SUBMISSIONS:
2.1. The applicant contends that the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Auro Mira Biopower India Pvt. Ltd., was admitted into CIRP, under section 9 vide order dated 01.09.2017. Subsequently vide order dated 16.07.2018, Liquidation was ordered and the 4th Respondent was appointed as Liquidator and vide order on 27.09.2019 private sale of the Corporate Debtor’s assets was approved.
2.2. It is submitted that the Applicant purchased the Immovable Property, including land, buildings, plant, and machinery, for Rs. 10,53,60,000/- through a Sale Deed executed on 12.02.2021, under Regulation 33 of the IBC Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 and The secured creditors relinquished their security interest, and the property was sold free of encumbrances.
2.3. It was further submitted that the Applicant submitted the Sale Rs. Deed for registration with the 3rd Respondent, paying 8,20,560/- in stamp duty and registration fees. However, registration was refused, citing the absence of an NOC from the 2nd Respondent due to alleged Rs. unpaid electricity tax dues of 3,04,16,748/- by the CD for the period July 2011–March 2014 and further submitted that no proof of claim was submitted by respondents regarding the same.
2.4. It is submitted that vide order dated 01.06.2022 in IA(IBC)/1005/CHE/2021, we directed the 3rd Respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 12.02.2021. However, it is noted that the 3rd Respondent continues to deny registration, citing alleged inadequate stamp duty and non-payment of past electricity dues.
2.5. It was emphasized that the past electricity dues of the CD cannot be enforced against the Applicant, as highlighted with recent legal precedents, including Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. HSA Traders, which establish that a new purchaser is liable only for fresh electricity dues. Further, the claim for past dues was made after the liquidation order and is barred under Section 33 of the IBC, which imposes a moratorium on proceedings against the CD.
2.6. It is submitted that the Applicant has taken possession of the property but cannot commence operations due to non-registration and denial of an electricity connection. This continued obstruction is causing financial loss and hardship to the applicant.
2.7 It was contented in the rejoinder that the Applicant was not aware of the tax dues and they stated that they are so far not the consumers. And non-payment of alleged dues does not entitle 3rd respondent to withhold the registration and the matter itself was held as time barred.
3. RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS
3.1 It was averted that as of 12.02.2021, electricity tax dues of Rs.3,04,16,784/- were outstanding on the subject property. The Corporate Debtor was repeatedly notified since 2012 but failed to clear the dues. Consequently, the matter was referred to the District Collector, Tirunelveli, under the Revenue Recovery Act, leading the 3rd Respondent to refuse the register of the sale deed.
3.2. It was submitted that the CD suppressed the initiation of CIRP from the authorities, causing a delayed Form-B claim subm
