Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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