Proper judicial interpretation of the IBC prohibits adjustment of security deposits during moratorium.

ORDER

IA 2940/2024: - This is the IA filed by the RP in respect of the releasing of the FDs kept with the bank for issue of bank guarantees. In all there are 4 bank guarantees and at the time of filing of this IA, 2 of the guarantees were still running and their dates have not expired. However as of now, the bank guarantees have all expired. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to seek instruction in view the period of bank guarantees have expired whether, they have received any claim from any person in respect of these bank guarantees by his client. He accordingly wishes to place such facts on record by way of additional affidavit. Let the same be done within a period of two weeks. List for further consideration on 27.11.2025

IA 651/2024: - This IA has been filed by the RP seeking following prayers.

“1. Allow the present IA of 2023 under provision of Section 60 (5) read with Section 14 of the Code;

2. Pass necessary order directing the Respondent to refund the Security Deposit of Rs. 13,23,102/- deposited by Hybro Foods Private Limited, immediately, into the designated account of the Corporate Debtor;

3. Issue such other necessary orders as may be deemed necessary in the matter.”

2. The main prayer relates to seeking directions to the Respondent to refund the security deposit of Rs. 13,23,102/- deposited by the Corporate Debtor into the designated account of the corporate debtor. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the corporate debtor was admitted into CIRP on 03.03.2023 and thereafter into Liquidation on 27.03.2025.

3. Learned counsel submits that the Corporate Debtor had deposited an amount of Rs. 13,23,102/- for which they were in correspondence with the electricity department for refund. However, during the period of moratorium such security deposit has been adjusted against the outstanding energy bill and therefore, the same is in violation of the Moratorium and accordingly, the respondent should be directed to refund the said amount of security deposit into the designated account of the Corporate Debtor.

4. In support learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Superintending Engineer Vs. Sivrama Prasad Bhamidi in Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(INS.) No. 104/2023 dated 02.08.2023. Learned counsel has taken us to relevant portion more specifically to para 6 and 7 and has submitted that the facts of the present case are identical and therefore, the directions should be given to the electricity board to refund the said amount of security deposit to the designated account of the corporate debtor.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent submits that on 06.12.2022 the respondent had placed energy bill of Rs. 25,82,060/- on the Corporate Debtor for electricity consumed by the Respondent for the month of November 2022. Such energy bill was not paid by the Corporate Debtor and resultantly the respondent after complying with the due process of law temporarily disconnected the electricity supply to the Corporate Debtor on 30.12.2022. It is further submitted that on 15.02.2023 the respondent permanently disconnected the electricity connection at the premises of the Corporate Debtor and on 06.09.2023, the respondent issued final bill after adjusting the amount of security deposit to the Corporate Debtor. It is contended that although the adjustment of security deposit became due at the time when the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment of the electricity bill i.e., in the month of December 2022, however, the same was effected in the energy bill dated 06.09.2023, and therefore, the adjustment made by the Respondent is appropriate and in accordance with regulation 13.8 of the Mah