Full Judgment Text
1
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.
1. 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’).
2. The appellant had entered into an agreement to
JUDGMENT
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.
3. 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.
4. Interpreting the terms of the agreement and the
communications in-between, the Commission as well as the
Page 1
2
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.
5. Under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, an
JUDGMENT
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
Page 2
3
of the agreement, both the Commission and the Appellate
Tribunal have held against the appellant.
6. We, thus, do not find any substantial question of law
so as to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 125 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. No order as to costs.
......................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
......................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
New Delhi,
September 7, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Page 3
4
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
JUDGMENT
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)
Page 4