Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dimension Steel And Alloys ... vs Damodar Valley Corporation And ... on 9 March, 2022
04
09.03.2022
TN
WPA No.3360 of 2022
Dimension Steel and Alloys Limited and another
Vs.
Damodar Valley Corporation and others
Mr. Joy Saha,
Ms. Sanchari Chakraborty,
Mr. Soumik Chakraborty,
Mr. Ayan Sarkar,
Mr. Ishaan Saha
.... for the petitioners
Mr. Abhratosh Mazumder,
Mr. Prabhat Kr. Srivastava,
Mr. Supratic Roy,
Mr. Amit Dey
.... for the DVC
A prima facie case has been made out by the
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners
insofar as whether the respondents were justified in
claiming the outstanding dues on account of arrears
of electricity bills from the petitioners as a prerequisite
of restoring the electricity connection of the
petitioners/giving a new connection to the petitioners,
who have taken over the assets and liabilities of the
original consumer.
The learned Senior Advocate places reliance on
the judgment of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private
Limited through the Authorised Signatory vs. Edelweiss
Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the
Director and others, reported at (2021) 9 SCC 657.
It is further contended that, although an appeal
has been preferred by the DVC against the specific
stipulation in the Resolution Plan, which has been
approved upto the NCLT, in respect of a direction
being passed against all Distribution Licensees to
restore electricity connection to the petitioners, the
DVC failed to obtain any order of stay in the said
appeal, which is still pending. The only limited
undertaking given by the petitioners before the
appellate forum was regarding not initiating any
contempt proceedings against the DVC.
The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondents contends at the outset that the scope of
the appeal pending against the approved Resolution
Plan by the Adjudicating Authority is not confined
only to the legality of the direction in the Resolution
Plan regarding restoration of electricity connection but
challenges the entire order of acceptance of the
Resolution Plan itself.
Hence, in the one breath having undertaken not
to initiate any contempt proceedings, the petitioners
are acting with unclean hands in approaching the writ
court for virtually implementing the Resolution Plan
itself.
The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondents further cites Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited vs. Amit Gupta and others, reported at (2021) 7
SCC 209 and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel
Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and others, reported
at (2020) 8 SCC 531, the latter having also been
referred with approval in Ghanashyam Mishra's case,
and categorically submits that the Resolution Plan
itself is in jeopardy in view of the pendency of the
appeal.
The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners insists on an interim order of restoration of
electricity connection to the petitioners, in view of the
fact that the Resolution Plan, on which the fates of
several people are depending, including the employees
of the concern, being held up due to the pendency of
the appeal.
The learned Senior Advocate for the
respondents, however, opposes the prayer for interim
order and submits that the grant of such interim
order at this stage might adversely affect the outcome
of the pending appeal before the appellate forum.
Although the scope of the appeal against the
Resolution Plan is still in doubt, as the respondents
seek specifically to use an affidavit-in-opposition to
the writ petition, the respondents are directed to file
their affidavits-in-opposition by March 21, 2022.
Reply, if any, shall be filed on March 22, 2022.
The matter shall next be enlisted for hearing,
fairly at the top of the list, on March 23, 2022.
It is made clear that no ad interim order is
being granted at this stage, since such an order would
tantamount to granting the final relief prayed for in
the writ petition.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
