Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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.  

Similar News