Document 2a2a18cb-bd1d-41e8-8fe4-94e92bb7616c
- Court
- Appellate Tribunal For Electricity
Court-1
IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
APPEAL NO.324 OF 2018 & IA NO.1710 OF 2025
Dated: 26.10.2026
Present: Hon’ble Ms. Seema Gupta, Officiating Chairperson
Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member
In the matter of:
GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited
Through its Authorized Signatory Ajaya Kumar Nathani
Building No. 302, New Shakti Bhavan,
Near Terminal 3 Indira Gandhi International Airport
Delhi – 110037 … Appellant
Versus
1. The Secretary
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
rd th
3 & 4 Floor, Chanderlok Building,
36, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001
2. The Chairman
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
“Saudamini”, Plot No. 2
Sector – 29, Gurgaon - 122001
3. The Chairman & Managing Director
Central Transmission of Utility of India Limited
th th
Floors No. 5 – 10 , IRCON Internation Tower
Tower 1, Plot No. 16, Institutional Area
Sector – 32, Gurugram,
Haryana – 122003 … Respondent (s)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 1 of 24
Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Nishtha Kumar
Yashaswi Kant,
Girik Bhalla
Pratyush Singh
Vishrov Mukherjee
Damodar Solanki
Priyanka Vyas
Juhi Senguttuvan
Sai Snigdha Nittala
Garima Adlakha
Snehal Upadhyay
Anumeha Smiti
Deepak Thakur
for App. 1
Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Suparna Srivastava
For Res. 2
Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv.
Poorva Saigal
Shubham Arya
Pallavi Saigal
Reeha Singh
Rishabh Saxena
Kaavya
For Res. 3
J U D G M E N T
PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This appeal is directed against the common order dated 08.12.2017
st
passed by the 1 respondent Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
(hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) whereby the petition
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 2 of 24
nos.203/MP/2015 and 41/MP/2016 were disposed of with the following
directions: -
“(a) As per the BPTA, PGCIL is under a contractual
obligation to release the bank guarantee given under
Clause 6.0 of the PPA if the generating units and
dedicated transmission lines are completed by the Project
Developer. Linking the construction BG under Clause 6 of
the BPTA with the opening of LC under Clause 2 of the
BPTA read with Clause 3.6.3 of the BCD procedure is not
in accordance with the provisions of BPTA. Therefore, BG
cannot be withheld on the ground that LC has not been
opened by the Project Developer.
(b) The project developer is under statutory and
contractual obligations to open the unconditional LC
before operationalization of LTA. In the present case, the
Petitioner has opened the LC for 647 MW in terms of the
directions of the Commission. Subject to satisfaction of
PGCIL with regard to the LC, BG shall be returned to the
Petitioner.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 3 of 24
(c) The Petitioner was granted LTA of 800 MW in
accordance with its application and the applicable
regulations for which the Petitioner entered into BPTA
dated 24.2.2010 with PGCIL. For change of region and
revision of LTA capacity, the Petitioner is required to
submit fresh application to CTU in terms of Regulation 12
of the Connectivity Regulations and directions contained
in Para 116 of the order dated 16.2.2015 in Petition No.
92/MP/2014.
(d) The Petitioner vide its letter dated 21.6.2016 requested
for grant of LTA of 387 MW for Northern Region and 260
MW for Eastern Region and for relinquishment of the
capacity of 153 MW. Accordingly, PGCIL has granted LTA
of 647 MW to the Petitioner.
(e) Revision of LTA quantum from 800 MW to 647 MW
(387 MW to Northern Region and 200 MW to Southern
Region) involves relinquishment of 200 MW capacity in
Southern Region and 213 MW in Northern region. The
Petitioner is liable to pay the relinquishment charges for
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 4 of 24
the relinquished capacities in terms of the decision and
order to be issued in Petition No.92/MP/2015.”
(Emphasis supplied)
2. A bird’s eye view of the facts of the case, which are germane for the
disposal of this appeal, are that the appellant has set up a thermal power
plant at Village Kamalanga in District Dhenkanal, Odisha with an installed
capacity of 1050 MW. As per the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
dated 09.06.2006 entered into between the appellant with the Government
of Odisha as well as Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 28.09.2006
entered into between the appellant and GRIDCO, 25% of power generated
in the project was agreed to be supplied to GRIDCO. With the addition of
another unit of 350 MW, the PPA executed with GRIDCO was subsequently
amended on 04.01.2011 to revise the installed capacity of the project to 1400
MW.
3. The appellant also entered into another PPA dated 12.03.2009 with
PTC India Limited for supply of 300 MW net power to Haryana Discoms on
long term basis for a period of 25 years commencing from the date of
commercial operation of the generating station. For the purpose of
evacuation of power from the project, the appellant entered into a Bulk Power
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 5 of 24
Transmission Agreement (BPTA) dated 24.02.2010 with CTU for availing
Long Term Access (LTA) for inter-State transmission of 800 MW of power
from its generating station on long term basis, out of which the appellant was
to evacuate 200 MW to utilities in Southern Region and remaining 600 MW
to utilities in Northern Region, which was subsequently modified to 647 MW
(387 MW in NR and 260 MW in ER). As per the relevant provisions of the
BPTA, the development of the generating station and the dedicated
transmission line for evacuation of power from appellant’s generating station
upto Angul pooling station was the responsibility of the appellant. The BPTA
also provides adequate security mechanism for ensuring performance of
these two obligations by the appellant/generator. The appellant was
required to furnish Bank Guarantees for an amount computed @ Rs.5 lakh
(Rupees five lakh) per MW as security towards commitment of the appellant
to construct the generating station and/or the dedicated transmission line.
Accordingly, the appellant duly furnished Bank Guarantees dated
18.02.2010 and 10.03.2010 for an amount of Rs.22.5crores and 17.5crores
nd
respectively to the 2 respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (now
rd
CTUIL i.e. the 3 respondent).
4. The appellant commissioned the three units of the generating station
in the moths of April, 2013, November, 2013 and March, 2014 as per the
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 6 of 24
stipulation in this regard in the BPTA. Further, the dedicated transmission
line, from the generating station to Angul pooling station was also
commissioned on 21.12.2014.
5. According to the appellant, upon successful completion of all its
obligations under the BPTA, the purpose of furnished Bank Guarantees as
nd rd
a security to 2 respondent (now CTUIL i.e. 3 respondent) stood fulfilled,
and therefore, the Bank Guarantees ought to have been returned to the
nd
appellant by the 2 respondent on its own. However, instead of returning the
nd
Bank Guarantees to the appellant, the 2 respondent started asking the
appellant to extend the validity of the Bank Guarantees. This demand was
nd
raised by 2 respondent vide letters dated 17.02.2015, 19.05.2015 and
05.08.2015.
6. In these circumstances, the appellant filed petition no.203/MP/2015
before the Commission seeking declaration that the demand letters dated
nd
17.02.2015, 19.05.2015 and 05.08.2015 issued by the 2 respondent Power
Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) are illegal as well as dehors the
nd
agreed terms of the BPTA. A further direction was sought to 2 respondent
for return of original Bank Guarantees in the amount of Rs.40 crores to the
appellant and for payment of Rs.22.67 lakhs towards bank charges for
extension of these Bank Guarantees. At the same time, the appellant filed
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 7 of 24
another petition no.41/MP/2016 seeking declaration that the LTA for 800MW
nd
granted to it by 2 respondent under BPTA dated 24.02.2010 stands
modified to 647 MW (387 MW in NR and 260 MW in ER) with further direction
to the appellant for reduction in the amount of Letter of Credit (LC) to be
opened by the appellant as payment security mechanism towards LTA.
7. Both these petitions were disposed of by the Commission vide
impugned order dated 08.12.2017. The directions issued by the
Commission have already been extracted in Paragraph no.2 hereinabove.
8. The appellant is aggrieved by the direction (b) issued by the
Commission vide the impugned order which is extracted hereinbelow again
at the cost of repetition: -
“ (b) The project developer is under statutory and
contractual obligations to open the unconditional LC
before operationalization of LTA. In the present case, the
Petitioner has opened the LC for 647 MW in terms of the
directions of the Commission. Subject to satisfaction of
PGCIL with regard to the LC, BG shall be returned to the
Petitioner. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 8 of 24
9. We have heard Mr. Vishrov Mukherjee, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
rd
of the 3 respondent CTUIL.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to
Paragraph no.27 of the impugned order wherein the Commission has held
that the Bank Guarantees submitted by the appellant could be encashed only
for recovering the damages or transmission charges in case of failure on the
part of the appellant to construct the generating station/dedicated
transmission system or in case the appellant exits or abandons the project,
and cannot be used for any other purpose including for ensuring opening of
Letter of Credit (LC)/Bank Guarantees(BG) as specified under clause 2.0 of
BPTA. For the sake of convenience, the said Paragraph of the impugned
order is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“27. A close examination of the above provisions reveals
that the BG under clause 6 and BG/LC under clause 2 of
the BPTA are independent provisions. The BG under
clause 6.0 is for the construction period which needs to be
kept alive for a period of 6 months after the expected date
of commissioning schedule of the generating units or such
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 9 of 24
period as per the requirement indicated in the Joint Co-
ordination Committee Meeting. This BG shall be
encashed only for recovering the damages or
transmission charges in case of failure to construct the
generating station/dedicated transmission system or in
case of exit or abandonment of the project by the project
developer. The BG cannot be used for any other purpose
including for ensuring opening of LC/BG under clause 2.0
of BPTA and clause 3.6.3 of the BCD Procedure. Had it
been the case, the BPTA would have clearly allowed in
clause 6 that the BG shall be kept alive till the LC/BG is
opened under clause 2 of the BPTA. Occurrence of words
“recovery of transmission charges” in clause 6.0 of the
BPTA is in the context where the transmission systems
have been commissioned but the generating units have
not been commissioned on account of failure to construct
the generating station/exit from the project or
abandonment of the projects by the generation project
developer. In that event, there is no scope for opening of
LC/BG by the generation project developer as it would not
use the transmission systems built on the basis of BPTA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 10 of 24
executed by it. Therefore, the BPTA provides that either
lumpsum damages or the transmission charges shall be
recovered from the construction BG furnished by the
Project Developer. Once the project developer achieves
the COD of the units of the generating stations, the
purpose for which BG was furnished under clause 6 of the
BPTA stands fulfilled and BG should be returned after the
expiry of the stipulated period. The project developer is
liable to open LC and BG in accordance with clause 2 of
the BPTA.”
11. The learned counsel would argue that upon making these observations
in Paragraph no.27 of the impugned order, the Commission has fallen into
an error in stating in direction (b) of the Paragraph no.43 of the impugned
order, which is the operating Paragraph, that subject to the satisfaction of
PGCIL with regards to LC, BG shall be returned to the petitioner (appellant
herein). It is his submission that there was no correlation between the Bank
Guarantees submitted by the appellant as a security for due and timely
completion of the power project as well as the transmission system and the
LC/BG to be submitted as a security for recovery of transmission charges as
per the clause 2.0 of the BPTA.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 11 of 24
rd
12. On behalf of the 3 respondent, it was argued by Mr. Nayyar, learned
senior counsel that since the appellant has relinquished certain capacity
which indicates abandoning/exiting the part of the project qua the
relinquished capacity, therefore, the Bank Guarantee could have been
encashed at the relevant time to recover the part of relinquishment and/or
transmission charges but the same could not be done for the reason that the
issue relating to relinquishment charges is pending adjudication in petition
no.92/MP/2015 before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. It is
his submission that the construction Bank Guarantees furnished by the
appellant secure not only the relinquishment of 153MW but also the
appellant’s obligation from abandoning the LTA for the balance capacity
including the transmission charges for the intervening period. He would
rd
argue that the 3 respondent CTUIL is entitled to initiate necessary steps to
recover the transmission charges to the tune of Rs.194.65 crores by
encashing the Bank Guarantee submitted by the appellant. It is also his
submission that the linking of the construction Bank Guarantees with the
relinquishment charges is also based upon the principle of equitable set off
as dealt by this Tribunal in judgment dated 15.07.2026 passed in appeal
no.45/2018 Tata Power Trading Company Limited v. KERC and Ors.
According to the learned senior counsel, it would be inequitable to let the
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 12 of 24
appellant secure release of the Bank Guarantees without discharging its
admitted liability and also for the reason that the appellant has been
voluntarily renewing the Bank Guarantees without any protest thereby
confirming the continued nexus with the outstanding relinquishment charges.
13. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels and
have perused the impugned order.
14. Clauses 2.0 and 6.0 of the BPTA are germane for our reconsideration
on the issue which has arisen in this appeal and the same are quoted
hereinbelow: -
Clause 2 of BPTA:
“2.0 (a) Long Term transmission customer shall share and pay
the transmission charges in accordance with the
regulation/tariff order issued by Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission from time to time of
POWERGRID transmission system of concerned
applicable Region i.e. Northern Region/Western
Region/Eastern Region and Southern Region including
charges for inter-regional links/ULDC/NLDC charges and
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 13 of 24
any additions thereof. These charges would be applicable
corresponding to the capacity of power contracted from
the said generation project through open access from the
scheduled date of commissioning of generating projects
as indicated at Annexure-I irrespective of their actual date
of commissioning.
(b) Long term transmission customer shall share and pay
the transmission charges of the transmission system
detailed in Annexure-3 in accordance with the sharing
mechanism detailed in Annexure-4. In case, in future, any
other long-term transmission customer(s) is/are granted
open access through the transmission system detailed at
Annexure-3 (subject to technical feasibility), he/they
would also share the applicable transmission charges.
(c) Each Long Term transmission customer (including its
successor/assignee) shall pay the applicable
transmission charges from the date of commissioning of
the respective transmission system which would not be
prior to the schedule commissioning date of generating
units as indicated by the respective developer as per
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 14 of 24
Annexure-1. The commissioning of transmission system
would be pre-poned only if the same is agreed mutually
by concerned parties.
(d) In addition to opening of LC for 105% of estimated
average monthly billing for charges mentioned at 2 (a) and
2 (b) above, Long-Term Transmission customer would
provide security in the form of irrevocable Bank Guarantee
(BG), in favor of POWERGRID, equivalent to two months
estimated average monthly billing, three months prior to
the scheduled date of commissioning of generating units
as indicated at Annexure-1. Initially the security
mechanism shall be valid for a minimum period of three
(3) years and shall be renewed from time to time till the
expiry of the open access.
(e) The estimated average transmission charges would be
reviewed every six months and accordingly the amount of
security would be enhanced/reduced by long term
transmission customers.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 15 of 24
(f) In case the long term transmission customer defaults in
payment of the monthly charges of POWERGRID bills
then, POWERGRID shall be entitled to encash/adjust the
BG immediately.
(g) In case of encashment/adjustment of BG by
POWERGRID against nonpayment of monthly charges by
long-term transmission customer, the same should be
immediately replenished/recouped by long-term
transmission customers before the next billing cycle.
(h) The format for bank guarantee is enclosed as
Annexure-X. The Bank Guarantee shall be issued by
i) A Public Sector Bank or
ii) Scheduled Indian Bank having paid up capital (net of
accumulated losses) of. Rs.100 crore or above (duly
supported by latest annual report) and also satisfying the
minimum capital adequacy requirement
iii) Any foreign Bank with overall International corporate
rating or rating of long term debt not less than A- (A minus)
or equivalent by reputed rating agency.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 16 of 24
Clause 6 of BPTA:
“6.0 (a) In case any of the developers fail to construct the
generating station/dedicated transmission system or
makes an exit or abandon its project. POWERGRID shall
have the light to collect the transmission charges and/or
damages as the case may be in accordance with the
notification/regulation issued by CERC from time to time.
The developer shall furnish a Bank guarantee from a
nationalized bank for an amount which shall be equivalent
to Rs. 5 (five) lakhs/MW to compensate such damages.
The bank guarantee format is enclosed as Annexure-Y.
The details and categories of bank would be in
accordance with clause 2 (h) above. The Bank guarantee
would be furnished in favour of POWERGRID in
accordance with the time frame agreed during the meeting
held at CEA on 1.2.2010. (b) This Bank guarantee would
be initially valid for a period upto six months after the
expected date of commissioning schedule of generating
unit(s) mentioned at Annexure-1 (however, for existing
commissioned units, the validity shall be the same as
applicable to the earliest validity applicable to the
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 17 of 24
generator in the group mentioned at Annexure1). The
bank guarantee would be encashed by POWERGRID in
case of adverse progress of individual generating unit(s)
assessed during coordination meeting as per para 7
below. However, the validity should be extended by
concerned Long Term transmission customer (s) as per
the requirement to be indicated during coordination
meeting.
(c) The POWERGRID shall build transmission system
including at Annexure-3 keeping view of various
commissioning schedules, however, till the completion of
identified transmission elements the transfer of power will
be based on the availability of system on short term basis.
(d) In the event of delay in commissioning of concerned
transmission system from its schedule, as indicated at
Annexure-4 POWERGRID shall pay proportionate
transmission charges to concerned Long Term Access
Customer(s) proportionate to its commissioned capacity
(which otherwise would have been paid by the concerned
Long Term Access Customer(s) of POWERGRID)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 18 of 24
provided generation is ready and POWERGRID fails to
make alternate arrangement for dispatch of power.”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Bare reading of these two clauses of the BPTA reveal that the security
mechanism provided in clauses 2.0 and clause 6.0 relate to the different time
periods and are meant to achieve distinct objectives. As rightly observed by
the Commission in Paragraph no.27 of the impugned order, the Bank
Guarantee envisaged under clause 6.0 is for the construction period only
which was required to be kept alive for a period of six months after the
expected date of commissioning of the generating unit/transmission system.
Such Bank Guarantee was encashable for recovery of damages or
transmission charges only in case of failure on the part of the developer (the
appellant herein) to construct the generating station/dedicated transmission
system or in case of exit or abandonment of the project by the developer.
Once the generating station/dedicated transmission system was duly
commissioned within the stipulated period, the Bank Guarantees were liable
to be returned to the project developer upon expiry of period of six month
from the date of commissioning of the project. Such Bank Guarantee could
not be used for any other purpose. On the other hand, the LC/BG envisaged
under clause 2.0 of the BPTA was to secure the payment of transmission
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 19 of 24
charges subsequent to the commissioning of the project. There is nothing in
the entire BPTA to show or suggest that the Bank Guarantees envisaged
under clauses 2.0 and 6.0 were to be interchangeable or that the Bank
Guarantee submitted under clause 6.0 could be utilized as the Bank
Guarantee envisaged under clause 2.0. Had the intention of the parties been
so, it would have clearly been stated in the BPTA that the Bank Guarantee
submitted under clause 6.0 shall be kept alive even after the period of six
months of commissioning of the project till the LC/BG as contemplated under
clause 2.0 is opened by the developer.
rd
16. The argument on behalf of the 3 respondent CTUIL that the
relinquishment of certain capacity of LTA by the appellant tantamounts to
abandoning/exiting the part of the project qua the relinquished capacity, and
therefore, the Bank Guarantee submitted under clause 6.0 by the appellant
is liable to be encashed, appears to be preposterous on the face of it. The
expression “ in case any of the developers fails to construct ………. or makes
an exit or abandons its project ” used in clause 6.0 indicate that the Bank
Guarantee shall be encashable by the PGCIL (now CTUIL) in case the
project developer does not complete the project and exits or abandons the
project midway. By no stretch of imagination can the same be related to
relinquishment of the LTA or any part of it by a project developer which issue
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 20 of 24
concededly was under consideration before the Central Commission in
petition no.92/MP/2015. It is also pertinent to note that the order passed by
the Commission in the said petition is under challenge before this Tribunal in
a batch of appeals filed by the power generators. The Bank Guarantee
contemplated under clause 6.0 of the BPTA can, in no circumstance, be
linked to the relinquishment of any capacity of LTA by the appellant.
17. The Commission has also correctly held in Paragraph no.27 of the
impugned order that the words “recovery of transmission charges” occurring
in clause 6.0 of the BPTA are in the context where the transmission system
has been commissioned but the generating units have not been
commissioned on account of failure to construct the generating station or on
account of exit/abandonment of the project by the developer. In that event,
there would be no occasion for the project developer to open LC/BG as
envisaged under clause 2.0 of the BPTA as the generating station would not
be using the transmission system built on the basis of BPTA. It is in such
situation that the BPTA provides that either the lumpsum damages or the
transmission charges shall be recovered from the construction Bank
Guarantee furnished by the project developer. That is not the case herein.
18. Having correctly interpreted and explained the ambit of clauses 2.0 and
6.0 of the BPTA, the Commission has patently erred in linking the return of
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 21 of 24
the construction Bank Guarantee to the appellant by PGCIL (now CTUIL) to
the opening of LC/BG by the appellant as envisaged under clause 2.0 of the
BPTA.
19. A Bank Guarantee is a separate and independent contract. It can only
be used or invoked in strict compliance to its terms and conditions. Any
invocation beyond the terms upon which the Bank Guarantee is furnished
would be contrary to the settled principles of law and thus, cannot be
permitted. As per Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, contract of
guarantee is a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a
third person in case of his default. The Bank Guarantees in question herein
were issued by the banker of the appellant as security for timely completion
of the power project/transmission project by the appellant. Once the projects
were completed and commissioned within the stipulated time, their purpose
got accomplished and lost their contractual value. Those can not be utilized
for any purpose other than the purpose for which those were submitted. The
respondents were under an obligation to return the Bank Guarantees to
appellant immediately upon expiry of six months of the commissioning of the
projects, as envisaged under clause 6.0 of the BPTA.
20. Therefore, considering the above discussion, the direction (b) in
concluding Paragraph no.43 of the impugned order linking the return of the
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 22 of 24
construction Bank Guarantee submitted by the appellant under clause 6.0 of
BPTA to the satisfaction of PGCIL (now CTUIL) with regard to the LC/BG
envisaged under clause 2.0 of the BPTA cannot be sustained. The same is
rd
hereby set aside. We direct the 3 respondent CTUIL to return the
construction Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant under clause 6.0 of
the BPTA, to the appellant forthwith and not later than two weeks from today.
st
21. Another prayer of the appellant for a direction to the 1 respondent
CTUIL to reimburse to the appellant a sum of Rs.5,74,25,547.50 (Rupees
five crore seventy-four lakh twenty-five thousand five hundred forty-seven
and fifty paise only) incurred by the appellant for keeping alive the above
noted Bank Guarantees (BGs), is not sustainable in the facts and
circumstances of this case. It is true that in terms of the impugned order of
the Commission, the appellant was required to keep alive the Bank
Guarantees in question till the opening of LC/BG as envisaged under clause
2.0 of the BPTA. However, it is material to point out here that along with the
instant appeal, the appellant has not filed any application seeking stay of the
operation of the impugned order of the Commission. The appellant kept on
extending the Bank Guarantees without praying for any interim relief on this
aspect before this Tribunal in this appeal. It was in the year 2025 that the
appellant woke up from slumber and preferred an application bearing IA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 23 of 24
No.1710/2025 with the prayer that the respondent PGCIL (now CTUIL) may
be restrained from seeking further extension of the Bank Guarantees
submitted by the appellant. It is upon hearing the learned counsels on this
application that order dated 22.12.2025 was passed restraining the
respondent CTUIL from seeking further extensions of the BGs till further
orders. Considering the said conduct of the appellant, the prayer for
reimbursement of the cost incurred for keeping the BGs alive during this
period, cannot be said to be justified. Therefore, the said prayer of the
appellant is hereby rejected.
22. The appeal, thus, stands partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove. All the pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
th
Pronounced in the open court on this the 26 day of October, 2026.
(Virender Bhat) (Seema Gupta)
Judicial Member Officiating Chairperson
REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE
tp
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal No.324 of 2018 Page 24 of 24