advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Grounds for attacking an order are different from substantial question of law evolved in the appeal=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.

                                                                  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


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.