- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Wardha Power Co. Ltd…. (S) v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. And Anr…. (S)
Factual and Procedural Background
Wardha Power Co. Ltd. (the appellant) entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to generate and supply electricity to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). Unable to meet the scheduled commencement of generation, the appellant procured electricity from third-party sources on an ad hoc basis to avoid contractual penalties. A dispute arose as to the price payable for this substitute supply: whether the respondent should pay the agreed PPA tariff or only the actual cost incurred by the appellant.
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, followed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, interpreted the contractual documents and ruled against the appellant. Challenging these concurrent findings, the appellant invoked Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking relief from the Supreme Court of India. The present judgment disposes of that statutory appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether electricity supplied through ad hoc third-party purchases, made due to delayed generation by the appellant, should be compensated at the PPA tariff or limited to the appellant’s actual procurement cost.
- Whether the appeal raised any “substantial question of law” within the meaning of Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (analogous to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) that would justify Supreme Court interference with concurrent findings of fact.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court confined its analysis to the statutory threshold under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which permits an appeal only on a substantial question of law. The Court noted:
- The appellant formulated thirty-four purported “questions,” but these were merely grounds of challenge to factual findings, not questions of law.
- Both the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal had examined the contractual terms and inter-party correspondence in detail and reached the same factual conclusion: the PPA tariff applies only to electricity actually generated by the appellant, whereas substitute purchases are reimbursable strictly at cost to prevent unjust enrichment.
- In the absence of any demonstrable legal error or substantial question of law, Supreme Court jurisdiction could not be invoked.
Consequently, the Court declined to re-appraise the evidence or disturb the concurrent factual determinations.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED. The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, leaving intact the findings of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. No order as to costs was made.
Implications: The decision confirms that appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act must articulate a genuine substantial question of law; purely factual disagreements with concurrent lower-forum findings do not suffice. The ruling affects only the parties and does not announce a new legal precedent.
Page 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 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
1
Page 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 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
2
Page 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.
3
Page 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
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
Alert