(hereinafter referred to as “Haryana Utilities”), appellants herein, and maintaining the judgment and order dated 13 June 2019 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CERC”) in Petition No 251/MP/2018.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/abuse-of-process-of-law-a-case-of-delayed-fir-filing/
The said PPAs were entered into between Haryana Utilities and AP(M)L in pursuance to a Tariff Based Competitive Bidding Process initiated by the Haryana Utilities under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as per the guidelines notified by the Central Government.
This being so, it is clear that so far as the procurement of Indian coal is concerned, to the extent that the supply from Coal India and other Indian sources is cut down, the PPA read with these documents provides in Clause 13.2 that while determining the consequences of change in law, parties shall have due regard to the principle that the purpose of compensating the party affected by such change in law is to restore, through monthly tariff payments, the affected party to the economic position as if such change in law has not occurred.
The APTEL, vide judgment and order dated 3 November 2020, dismissed the said appeal.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-circumstantial-evidence-conviction-reversed/
Contending that there was a shortfall from 75% ACQ, AP(M)L filed a petition being Petition No 251/MP/2018 claiming relief for shortfall on account of Change in Law.
The second ground was that the AP(M)L had not given a Notice of Change in Law and, as such, was not entitled to the benefit on the ground of Change in Law. By an order of even date, we have decided the appeals filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), wherein all these grounds were raised and considered, and held against DISCOMs.
The view also cannot be said to be ex-facie arbitrary or illegal.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/quashing-of-proceedings-in-criminal-case-no-542-of-2020/
The view also cannot be said to be ex-facie arbitrary or illegal.
No costs.
Case Title: UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs. ADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED (2023 INSC 402)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005684 / 2021
