WARDHA POWER CO LTD Vs. MAHARASHTRA ST.ELECT.DISTRN.CO.LTD.&ANR.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 5919 of 2013, Judgment Date: Sep 07, 2016
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5919 OF 2013
WARDHA POWER CO. LTD. ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY
DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
The appellant is aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short ’the Commission’)
and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (in short ‘the Tribunal’).
The appellant had entered into an agreement to generate and supply power to
Respondent No.1. Since the appellant could not keep up the time schedule,
it made an adhoc arrangement for purchase of power from other sources.
Whether such adhoc supply should be at the actual cost incurred by the
appellant or at the agreed rate for the generated power is the short
question.
Interpreting the terms of the agreement and the communications in-between,
the Commission as well as the Tribunal, after elaborately discussing the
entire evidence, have rendered a concurrent finding against the appellant.
The specific understanding between the parties was that being a bidder, who
has agreed to supply power from the source of generation, can claim the
Power Purchase Agreement (in short ‘PPP’) rates only for the generated
power. For the delayed generation, to avoid the penalty, appellant was
permitted to make adhoc arrangements by purchase of power from other
sources. In case the rates for purchased power is less than the PPA
agreement rates, appellant can claim only that. For the delayed supply
from the generating sources, while purchasing power from other sources,
appellant cannot trade and make any unjust enrichment. Moreover, the
communication with the respondent would also indicate that it was the
understanding between the parties.
Under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, an appeal to this Court
lies only when there is a substantial question of law, as required for a
second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Though
the appellant has raised 34 questions, they are actually grounds for
attacking the appellate order. Grounds for attacking an order are different
from substantial question of law evolved in the appeal. On appreciation of
the correspondence between the parties during the subsistence of the
agreement, both the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal have held against
the appellant.
We, thus, do not find any substantial question of law so as to exercise our
jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
......................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
......................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
New Delhi,
September 7, 2016.
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.10 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5919/2013
WARDHA POWER CO LTD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA ST.ELECT.DISTRN.CO.LTD.&ANR. Respondent(s)
(With appl.(s) for directions and permission to file additional documents
and permission to place additional documents on record)
(For final disposal)
Date : 07/09/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv.
Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Adv.
Mr. Krishanu Adhikary, Adv.
Ms. Richa Kapoor,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mrs. Deepa Chawan, Adv.
Mr. Nirav Shah, Adv.
Ms. Ramni Taneja, Adv.
Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed judgment.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[RENU DIWAN] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR A.R.-CUM-P.S.
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
-----------------------
4