138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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