Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

Supreme Court Rules on Priority of Dues in Electricity Recovery Cases: Secured Creditors Take Precedence Over Government Dues

04 September 2024 10:31 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has settled the debate regarding the priority of dues in electricity recovery cases, emphasizing the supremacy of secured creditors over government dues. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta, provides clarity on the application of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the role of registration of charges under the Companies Act, 2013.

The court highlighted the recovery mechanism under the Electricity Act, 2003, which empowers licensees to disconnect electricity supply in case of non-payment. Additionally, State Commissions are authorized to frame regulations for recovery of electricity charges. The judgment noted that outstanding dues, as per the 2005 Supply Code, can constitute a charge on the assets of the company, and licensees must ensure such provisions in their agreements.

Addressing the distinction between government dues and dues to secured creditors, the court held that dues payable to power distribution licensee, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (PVVNL), did not fall under the category of government dues. The court emphasized that PVVNL's functions could be replicated by other entities and that private participation in the electricity sector is widespread. As a result, PVVNL was classified as a secured creditor, taking precedence over government dues.

Regarding the effect of non-registration of charges under Section 77 of the Companies Act, the court did not rule on the matter, considering the concurrent findings that PVVNL was a secured creditor.

In concluding the judgment, the court directed the liquidator to decide PVVNL's claim in accordance with the law within 10 weeks.

Bench stated, "The distinction between the governments has been recognized and maintained by previous decisions of this court," emphasizing that PVVNL, though having government participation, should not be considered a part of the State Government.

This judgment clarifies the priority of dues in electricity recovery cases and provides important guidance on the applicability of the IBC and the registration of charges. It establishes a precedent that secured creditors should be given higher priority than government dues in such cases.

Date of Decision: July 17, 2023

PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.  vs RAMAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.  

Latest Legal News