Southern Power Distribution Company & Ors vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr

Court
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity

Judgement in Appeal No. 456 of 2022

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
(Appellate Jurisdiction)

APPEAL NO. 456 of 2022

Dated: 16.07.2026

Present: Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member
Hon’ble Mr. Ajay Talegaonkar, Technical Member


IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Southern Power Distribution Company
of Andhra Pradesh Limited
19-13-65/A, Raghavendra Nagar,
Kesavayana Gunta, Tiruchanoor Road
Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh – 517501
Appellant No.1

2. Southern Power Distribution Company
of Andhra Pradesh Limited
19-13-65/A, Raghavendra Nagar,
Kesavayana Gunta, Tiruchanoor Road
Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh – 517501
Appellant No.2

3. Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee
APPPC Building
First Floor, Vidyut Soudha – AP Transco
Beside KAY Hotel
Near Ramavappadu Ring Eluru Road
Vijaywada – 520004
Appellant No.3


Versus

1. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
th
4 Floor, Singareni Bhavan,
Red Hills, Hyderabad – 500004
Respondent No. 1

Page 1 of 6

Judgement in Appeal No. 456 of 2022

2. M/s Chaitanya Projects Limited
H.No. 6-5-265-5
Sri Nagar Colony, Near Water Tank
Anantpur Andhra Pradesh - 515001
Respondent No. 2

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sidhant Kumar
Ms. Manya Chandok
Ms. Ekshha Kashyap for A-1 to A3

Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sridhar Potaraju
Mr. Mukunda Rao Angara
Ms. Ankita Sharma
Ms. Shiwani Tushir
Mr. Yashvir Kumar for Res.-1

Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath for Res-2

JUDGEMENT

PER HON’BLE MR. AJAY TALEGAONKAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Southern Power Distribution
Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. and others (collectively referred to as the
“Appellants”). The Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2021
passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (“State
Commission”) in Original Petition (O.P.) No. 20 of 2020.

2. In the Impugned Order, the State Commission dealt with the status of the
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 30.03.2017 executed between
Appellant No. 1- Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh
(APSPDCL) and Respondent No. 2 (M/s. Chaitanya Projects Ltd., herein after
briefly referred as M/s. Chaitanya). The State Commission declared the PPA
invalid and legally unenforceable on the ground that it lacked the mandatory
Page 2 of 6

Judgement in Appeal No. 456 of 2022

statutory approval required under Section 86(1) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. In
the same order, the State Commission, invoking Section 70 of the Contract Act,
1872, had directed APSPDCL to compensate M/s. Chaitanya for the energy
injected into the grid from 30.03.2017 until the eventual date of its disconnection
on 23.03.2020, calculated at a rate of ₹ 2.93 per unit. It is this limited direction
that forms the subject matter of the present appeal. The Appellants have filed the
current appeal against the later direction of the State Commission i.e. decree
under Section 70 of the Contract Act.

3. M/s. Chaitanya established a 0.8 MW wind energy project which was
commissioned on 29.03.2017. APSPDCL entered into the PPA dated 30.03.2017 with
M/s. Chaitanya.

4. Thereafter, M/s. Chaitanya continued to inject electrical energy generated
from its wind project into the grid. On 02.03.2020, APSPDCL issued a
communication to M/s. Chaitanya stating that any power supplied would be
treated as inadvertent power injected without proper consent and that no payment
would be made for the same.

5. Subsequently, on 23.03.2020, the project of M/s. Chaitanya was
completely disconnected from the grid. M/s. Chaitanya approached the State
Commission by filing O.P. No. 20 of 2020, praying for the specific performance
of the PPA and seeking payment for the power it had generated and supplied.

6. We note that similar matter for another generating company namely
Vibrant Greentech India Private Limited (VGIPL) was dealt with by the State
Commission in the same Impugned Order. APSPDCL and APPCC , which are
the Appellants in the present case had filed similar appeal bearing No. 468 of
2022 with VGIPL. On the other hand, a cross-appeal was filed by VGPIL bearing
Page 3 of 6

Judgement in Appeal No. 456 of 2022

No. 11 of 2022, which inter-alia challenged the validity of disconnection by
APSPDCL and also prayed for enhancement of the compensation granted by
the State Commission.

7. When the present appeal along with the two other appeals mentioned in
the previous paragraphs came up for hearing on 02.07.2026 before us, the
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of APSPDCL & Andhra Pradesh Power
Coordination Committee (APPCC) which are the Appellants in present appeal as
well as in Appeal No. 468 of 2022 submitted that they have already filed written
submissions in Appeal Nos. 11 & 468 of 2022 and the same may be read as
written submission in so far as this Appeal is concerned.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, Learned Counsel for VGIPL
submitted that they have already filed their written submissions in Appeal Nos.
11 & 468 of 2022. He further submitted that he has no instruction with regard to
Appeal No. 456 of 2022 is concerned. He was advised to take instructions and
submit the same by way of an affidavit within one week. Thereafter, the judgment
was reserved in Appeal No. 456 of 2022.

9. Vide Affidavit dated 08.07.2026, Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, Learned
Counsel submitted that he had tried to contact the Respondent No. 2- M/s.
Chaitanya but there is no instruction from them.

10. The question for our determination is whether a power generator can be
awarded compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 for
energy injected into a grid system under the aegis of an unapproved and legally
unenforceable PPA.

Page 4 of 6

Judgement in Appeal No. 456 of 2022

11. This Tribunal has already pronounced judgement on 07.07.2026 in that
case under Appeal No. 11 of 2022 and Appeal No. 468 of 2022. In the aforesaid
judgement, after detailed analysis, we had inter-alia upheld the decision of the
State Commission to award compensation to VGPIL under Section 70 of the
Contract Act.

12. In so far as issue of validity of the compensation granted by the State
Commission, the said matter shares an identical factual matrix, emerges from the
very same Impugned Order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the State Commission
and addresses the exact same legal issues. Therefore, in the present case also,
we uphold the decision of the State Commission to award compensation under
Section 70 of the Contract Act.

13. The related issues which naturally arises is that in the Impugned Order,
the State Commission had awarded the aforesaid compensation at the rate of ₹
2.93 per unit. As mentioned earlier, VGPIL had filed a cross appeal No. 11 of
2022 in which prayer was to increase the compensation. In that case, after
detailed analysis, we had remanded the matter to the State Commission for fresh
determination of the rate of compensation.

14. However, we note that in the present proceedings, not only there is no cross
appeal, but the Respondent No. 2 M/s. Chaitanya has neither appeared before
us, nor any submissions have been filed on their behalf.

15. Appellate courts possess wide powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, to pass any decree or make any order which ought to
have been passed, even in favour of a party who has neither preferred an appeal
nor filed cross-objections, where the circumstances so warrant. However, the
power is discretionary and is intended to avoid inconsistent, contradictory or
Page 5 of 6

Judgement in Appeal No. 456 of 2022

unworkable decrees and to do complete justice between the parties. Since the
power under Rule 33 constitutes an exception to the general principle that a party
cannot obtain a more favourable decree without preferring an appeal or filing
cross-objections, it must be exercised with care and caution (Choudhary Sahu
(Dead) by LRs v. State of Bihar, (1982) 1 SCC 232) . Ordinarily the appellate
court must not vary or reverse a decree/order in favour of a party who has not
preferred any appeal; however, in exceptional cases, the Rule enables the
appellate court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed ( K.
Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Gounder, (1998) 7 SCC 327 ).

16. In view of the above analysis, we have consciously decided not to remand
the matter to the State Commission for fresh determination of rate of
compensation.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons as stated above, the captioned Appeal No. 456 of 2022
is disallowed.

th
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 DAY OF JULY, 2026.


(Ajay Talegaonkar)
(Virender Bhat)
Judicial Member
Technical Member


REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE
kns/mkj/kks

Page 6 of 6