ORDER

CA No. 1055/2019

1. The present application is being filed by Schreiber Dynamix Dairies Private Limited (herein referred to as the “Applicant”) against Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, the Resolution Professional of International Mega Food Park Limited (herein referred to as Resolution Professional or Respondent) under Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016.

2. It is prayed by the applicant to declare that the Respondent is liable to supply the electricity to the Applicant @ Rs. 6.75/- per unit in terms of the Lease Deed and to direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 1,22,98,152/- deposited with him in terms of the said Letter dated August 1, 2019.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the application, are that the applicant is the lessee of the corporate debtor and is engaged in the business of manufacturing juices and dairy products. The Corporate Debtor is operating a Mega Food Park under the Mega-Food Park Scheme of the Government of India. The Corporate Debtor offered plots on a leasehold basis and promised infrastructure support such as water supply, power supply, effluent treatment etc. The Corporate Debtor and the applicant have executed a Letter of Intent (LOI), and in pursuance of the same, a lease deed dated 06.11.2015 (subsequently registered on 09.03.2016) has been entered into by the parties. The copies of the LOI and lease deed dated 09.03.2016 is attached as Annexure-A2 and A-4, respectively, of the application. It is averred that Under the Lease Deed, the Corporate Debtor also agreed to provide to the Applicant with certain utilities required for running the Applicant’s manufacturing facility, such as electricity, steam, refrigeration, cold storage, water, effluent treatment and compressed air. Afterwards, a Utility Services and Common Facilities Agreement dated February 8, 2016 (Annexure A5) was also executed to supply the utilities.

4. It is further submitted that as per the lease deed, the corporate debtor has agreed to supply electricity @ Rs. 6.75/- per unit, irrespective of the source. Thereafter, an application under Section 7 of the Code was admitted against the corporate debtor on 28.02.2019, and a public announcement dated 01.03.2019 was made inviting claims from the creditors. CoC was constituted by IRP, and Rp was confirmed. After the CIRP, on April 2, 2019, the Corporate Debtor raised an electricity bill on the Applicant at a rate of Rs. 6.75 per unit as per the terms of the Lease Deed. However, on April 3, 2019, another electricity bill for a differential amount of Rs. 3.25 per unit was raised for the month of March 2019. Moreover, on April 3, 2019, the Applicant received an email requesting the Applicant to accept a power bill of Rs. 10/- per unit for the month of March 2019 onwards. The Copies of Email Correspondences are attached as Annexure A-13 of the application. It is further submitted that in the meeting of the Committee of Creditors held On May 13, 2019, the Applicant was prevented from voting on the pretext that it is a related party of the Corporate Debtor and the Applicant was requested to pay electricity charges at a rate higher than what was agreed under the Lease Deed. It is mentioned that the Applicant never agreed to pay higher electricity charges; in spite of that, the Resolution Professional sent an email on May 24, 2019, and on June 4, 2019, once again, demanding higher electricity charges. The Applicant provided a detailed response to the Resolution Professional on June 17, 2019, reiterating that it was under no obligation to pay higher electricity charges than what was agreed between the Applicant and the Corporate Debtor as per the terms of the Lease Deed. The applicant has filed CA No.464/2019 with prayer the resolution to not disconnect the electricity, and during the pendency of the said application, the Applicant and Respondent agreed to enter into a temporary arrangement qua the issue involved, wherein