Electricity – Components to be considered as “Change in Law” events – Held: The term “Law” has been defined in the Power Purchase Agreements – ‘Law’ would mean all laws including Electricity Laws in force in India and any statute, ordinance, regulations, orders, Notification or code, rules, or any interpretation of any of them by an Indian Governmental Instrumentality and having force of law – It shall also include all rules, regulations, decisions and orders of the CERC and the MERC – Thus, all such additional charges which are payable on account of orders, directions, Notifications, Regulations, etc., issued by the instrumentalities of the State after the cut-off date will have to be considered to be ‘Change in Law’ events – The Generators would be entitled to compensation on the restitutionary principle on such changes occurring after the cut-off date – Revision of charges to be paid on Busy Season Surcharge, Development Surcharge and Port Congestion Charges from time to time by the ‘Railway Board’ would come within the ambit of ‘Change in Law’ – Notifications by which MoEF mandated power projects to use beneficiated coal with ash content lower than 34% would also amount to “Change in Law’ – Further, change in NCDP would also amount to ‘Change in Law’ – With regard to forest tax, as on the cut-off date there was no Forest Tax applicable on coal mined and transported from South Eastern Coalfields Limited mines located in Forest area – For the first time, vide Notification of the Forest Department, Government of Chhattisgarh a fee was levied – Said notification issued by the Forest Department of the Government of Chhattisgarh, which is an instrumentality of the State would also be a ‘Change in Law’ – No error in the finding of the APTEL in that regard – Also, ‘add on premium’ was required to be paid on account of cancellation of captive coal blocks and inordinate delay on account of Go-No-Go policy – As such, it cannot be said that the reasoning adopted by the APTEL is perverse and arbitrary – EFC imposed by CIL which is an instrumentality of the State, circular of CIL would also amount to ‘Change in Law’ – In the light of said findings, each of the appeals considered independently, dismissed – Electricity Act, 2003. Electricity – Carrying cost – Grant of interest – Held: Once carrying cost has been granted, it cannot be urged that interest on carrying cost should be calculated on simple interest basis instead of compound interest basis – Grant of compound interest on carrying cost and that too from the date of the occurrence of the ‘Change in Law’ event is based on sound logic – It aimed at restituting a party that is adversely affected by a ‘Change in Law’ event and restore it to its original economic position as if such a ‘Change in Law’ event had not taken place – In view of the consistent position of law and application of restitutionary principles and privity of contractual obligations between the parties as contained in the Power Purchase Agreements, the view taken by the APTEL with regard to carrying cost warrants no interference – Electricity Act, 2003. Electricity Act, 2003 – s.125 – Appeals arising from concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two statutory bodies having expertise in the field – Held: CERC, SERCs and APTEL are bodies consisting of experts in the field – This Court should be slow in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact unless they are found to be perverse, arbitrary and either in ignorance of or contrary to the statutory provisions – Appeal to this Court u/s.125 is only permissible on any of the grounds as specified in s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – As such, the appeal to this Court would be permissible only on substantial questions of law – However, even in cases where well-reasoned concurrent orders are passed by the ERC and APTEL, the same are challenged by the DISCOMS as well as the Generators – On account of pendency of litigation, which in some of the cases in this batch has been more than 5 years, nonpayment of dues would entail paying of heavy carrying cost to the Generators by the DISCOMS, which, in turn, will be passed over to the end consumer – As a result, it will be the end consumer who would be at sufferance – Therefore, such unnecessary and unwarranted litigation needs to be curbed – Union of India, through Ministry of Power, may evolve a mechanism to ensure timely payment by the DISCOMS to the Generating Companies, which would avoid huge carrying cost to be passed over to the end consumers – A mechanism may also be evolved to avoid unnecessary and unwarranted litigation, the cost of which is also passed on to the ultimate consumer – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The term “Law”, has been defined in the PPAs. Perusal of the definition of the term “Law” itself would clearly show that the term “Law” would mean all laws including Electricity Laws in force in India and any statute, ordinance, regulation, Notification or code, rule, or any interpretation of any of them by an Indian Governmental Instrumentality and having force of law. It would further reveal that the term “Law” shall also include all applicable rules, regulations, orders, Notifications by an Indian Governmental Instrumentality and shall also include all rules, regulations, decisions and orders of the CERC and the MERC. CIL is an instrumentality of the Government of India and its orders, insofar as price of fuel are concerned, are binding on all its subsidiaries. Price of coal includes the sum of base price, other charges and statutory charges as applicable at the time of delivery of coal. As discussed, the term ‘Law’ would also include all applicable rules, regulations, orders, Notifications issued by an Indian Governmental Instrumentality. It would thus be clear that all such additional charges which are payable on account of orders, directions, Notifications, Regulations, etc., issued by the instrumentalities of the State, after the cut-off date, will have to be considered to be ‘Change in Law’ events. The Generators would be entitled to compensation on the restitutionary principle on such changes occurring after the cut-off date. [Paras 93, 94, 96-99][218-C, E-F; 219-E, G-H; 220-A]
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and others (2017) 14 SCC 80; Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and others v. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited and another 2020 SCC Online SC 697; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine 233 – relied on.
2. Insofar as increase in Busy Season Surcharge, Development Surcharge on transportation of coal, and Port Congestion Surcharge by the Indian Railways are concerned, the learned APTEL had found that the Indian Railways is an instrumentality of the State. It has been found that the Busy Season Surcharge, Development Surcharge and Port Congestion Surcharge were increased from time to time vide Circulars/Notifications issued by the Ministry of Railways, through the Railway Board. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in the case of Railway Board, Government of India v. M/s Observer Publications (P) Ltd., has held the Railway Board to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such, no error could be found in the finding of the learned APTEL that the revision of charges to be paid on Busy Season Surcharge, Development Surcharge and Port Congestion Charges from time to time by the ‘Railway Board’ would come within the ambit of ‘Change in Law’. [Paras 101-103][220-C-E]
Railway Board, Government of India v. M/s Observer Publications (P) Ltd. (1972) 2 SCC 266 : [1972] 3 SCR
865 – relied on.
3. Insofar as MoEF notification on coal quality is concerned, the MoEF, vide Notification dated 2nd January 2014, i.e. subsequent to the particular cut-off date, i.e. 1st June 2012, has mandated power projects to use beneficiated coal with ash content lower than 34%. The draft notification of MoEF dated 11th July 2012 culminated into the final Notification dated 2nd January 2014. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that MoEF is not an instrumentality of the State. By the said Notification, MoEF has mandated power projects to use beneficiated coal with ash content lower than 34%. Admittedly, prior to the cut-off date, the same was not a requirement. It is thus clear that the said Notifications dated 11th July 2012 and 2nd January 2014 would amount to “Change in Law’. As such, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned APTEL that the same would amount to ‘Change in Law’. [Paras 104, 105][220-F-H; 221-A]
4. This Court in the case of Energy Watchdog so also in Adani Rajasthan case and recently in MSEDCL v. APML & Ors. has held that the change in NCDP would amount to ‘Change in Law’. [Paras 106][221-C]
5. Insofar as Forest Tax is concerned, perusal of the material placed on record would reveal that, as on the cut-off date, there was no Forest Tax applicable on coal mined and transported from South Eastern Coalfields Limited (“SECL” for short) mines located in Forest area. For the first time, vide Notification of the Chhattisgarh State Government, Department of Forest, under
53 the provisions of Chhattisgarh Transit (Forest Produce Rule) 2001, a fee at the rate of Rs.7 per ton was levied. Undisputedly, the said Notification is issued by the Forest Department of the Government of Chhattisgarh, which is an instrumentality of the State. As such, no error can be found with the finding of the learned APTEL in that regard. [Para 107][221-D-E]
6. Insofar as ‘Add on premium price’ is concerned, undisputedly, ‘add on premium’ was required to be paid on account of cancellation of captive coal blocks and inordinate delay on account of Go-No-Go policy. As such, it cannot be said that the reasoning adopted by the learned APTEL is perverse and arbitrary. [Para 108][221-F]
7. EFC was imposed by CIL vide its Circular dated 19th December 2017. CIL is an instrumentality of the State. It is thus clear that, on the cut-off date, there was no requirement of EFC, which has been brought into effect only on 19th December 2017. As such, the circular of CIL dated 19th December 2017 would also amount to ‘Change in Law’. It is also not in dispute that EFC has been paid by the generators while paying the base price, other charges and statutory charges at the time of delivery of coal. As such, no interference would be warranted with the said finding. [Paras 109-111][221-G-H; 222-A]
8. A perusal of Article 11.3.4 of the PPA would reveal that in the event of delay in payment of a monthly bill by any procurer beyond its due date, a late payment surcharge shall be payable by the procurer to the seller at the rate of 2% in excess of the applicable State Bank Advance Rate (“SBAR” for short) per annum, on the amount of outstanding payment, calculated on a day to day basis (and compounded with monthly rest), for each day of the delay. Article 11.8 of the PPA deals with Payment of Supplementary Bill. It enables either party to raise a supplementary bill on the other party for payment on account of certain events. Clause (iii) of Article 11.8.1 of the PPA deals with ‘Change in Law’ as provided in Article 13. It requires the bill to be paid by the other party. Article 11.8.3 of the PPA also provides that in the event of delay in payment of a supplementary bill by either party beyond one month from the date of billing, a late payment surcharge shall be payable at same terms applicable to the monthly bill in Article 11.3.4. This Court in the case of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UNHVNL) and another v. Adani Power Limited and others has held that insofar as the “operation period” is concerned, compensation for any increase/decrease in revenues or costs to the seller is to be determined and effected from such date as is decided by the appropriate Commission. It has further been held that the compensation is only payable for increase/decrease in revenue or cost to the seller if it is in excess of an amount equivalent to 1% of the Letter of Credit in aggregate for a contract year. It has been held that restitutionary principles apply in case a certain threshold limit is crossed. It has been held that an in-built restitutionary principle compensates the party affected by such ‘Change in Law’ and the affected party must be restored through monthly tariff payment to the same economic position as if such ‘Change in Law’ had not occurred. In case the ‘Change in Law’ happens to be by way of adoption, promulgation, amendment, re-enactment or repeal of the law or ‘Change in Law’, it has to be effected from the date on which such change occurs. In Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others, this Court has clearly held that the DISCOMS have a contractual obligation to make timely payment of the invoices raised by the power generating companies, subject to scrutiny and verification of the same. This Court has rejected the contention that the funding cost was much lesser than the rate of LPS. This Court has reiterated the proposition that the courts cannot rewrite a contract which is executed between the parties. This Court has emphasized that it cannot substitute its own view of the presumed understanding of commercial terms by the parties, if the terms are explicitly expressed. It has been held that the explicit terms of a contract are always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties. Article 11.8 of the PPA entitles either party to raise a supplementary bill on the other party on account of ‘Change in Law’ as provided in Article 13 and such bills are required to be paid by the either party. Article 11.8.3 of the PPA specifically provides that in the event of delay in payment of a supplementary bill by either party beyond one month from the date of billing, a late payment surcharge shall be payable at the same terms applicable to the monthly bill in Article 11.3.4. Article 11.3.4 of the PPA specifically provides a late payment surcharge to be paid by the procurer to the seller at the rate of 2% in excess of the applicable SBAR per annum on the amount of outstanding payment calculated on day to day basis (and compounded with monthly rest), for each day of the delay. In Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Another v. Adani Power (Mundra) Limited and Another this Court has reiterated that once carrying cost has been granted, it cannot be urged that interest on carrying cost should be calculated on simple interest basis instead of compound interest basis. It has been held that grant of compound interest on carrying cost and that too from the date of the occurrence of the ‘Change in Law’ event is based on sound logic. It has been held that it is aimed at restituting a party that is adversely affected by a ‘Change in Law’ event and restore it to its original economic position as if such a ‘Change in Law’ event had not taken place. The argument that there is no provision in the PPAs for payment of compound interest from the date when the ‘Change in Law’ event had occurred, has been specifically rejected by this Court. In view of this consistent position of law and application of restitutionary principles and privity of contractual obligations between the parties as contained in the PPAs, the view taken by the learned APTEL with regard to carrying cost does not warrants interference. [Paras 116-126][223-D-G; 225B-F; 227-D-H; 228-A; 229-D-G]
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UNHVNL) and another v. Adani Power Limited and others (2019)
5 SCC 325 : [2019] 4 SCR 487; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v.
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others (2022) 4 SCC 657; Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Another v. Adani Power (Mundra) Limited and Another (2023) 2 SCC 624 – relied on.
9. Civil Appeal No. 11095 of 2018 and Civil Appeal Nos. 11910 - 11911 of 2018
In these batch of appeals, insofar as the appeal of DNHDISCOM is concerned, they are aggrieved by the order of the learned APTEL allowing Busy Season Surcharge and Development Surcharge, MoEF Notification on coal quality and Change in NCDP. They are also aggrieved by the finding of the learned APTEL with regard to carrying cost. Insofar as the Busy Season Surcharge and Development Surcharge are concerned, they are issued under the Circulars/Notifications of Indian Railways. The notification on coal quality is issued by MoEF. All these are the instrumentalities of the State, and these would, therefore, amount to ‘Change in Law’. Insofar as rest of the claims, which are concurrently allowed and disallowed by both the CERC and the learned APTEL, are concerned, in view of the judgments of this Court on this issue, as stated above, there is no-reason to interfere with the same, not noticing any perversity, arbitrariness and/or any contravention of the statutory provisions. The appeals of both the Generator and the DNH-DISCOM are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. [Paras 132, 134, 135][231-G-H; 232-A, B-D]
10. Civil Appeal Nos. 4628-4629 of 2021
The learned APTEL allowed the claim of the Generator only on the ground of Busy Season Surcharge and Development Surcharge on transportation of coal, and the Carrying Cost. In view of finding on the issues as above, no error can be found with the finding of the learned APTEL in that regard. No merit in the appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. [Paras 136, 137][232-E-F]
11. Civil Appeal Nos. 12055-12056 of 2018
The issue of Busy Season Surcharge, Development Surcharge and Port Congestion Surcharge have already been considered by us herein above. All these are charges under the Notifications issued by the Indian Railways, through the Railway Board. As such, no error can be found with the finding of the learned APTEL that they would amount to ‘Change in Law’ events. Insofar as levy of ‘Forest Tax’ is concerned, the same is levied by the State Government under the statutory provisions. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned APTEL. The appeals are, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. [Paras 138, 139, 141][232-F-G; 233-A]
12. Civil Appeal Nos. 2935-2936 of 2020
In addition to the ‘Change in Law’ benefits granted by the State Commission, ‘Coal Terminal Surcharge’, ‘Chhattisgarh Paryavaran Upkar’ and ‘Chhattisgarh Vikas Upkar’ were also considered to be ‘Change in Law’ events by the learned APTEL. The ‘Coal Terminal Surcharge’ was levied by the Indian Railways subsequent to the cut-off date. Similarly, the Government of Chhattisgarh, under Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Adhosanrachna Vikas Evam Paryavaran Upkar Adhiniyam, 2005, vide Notification dated 16th June 2015, which is admittedly after the cut-off date, introduced ‘Chhattisgarh Paryavaran Upkar’ and ‘Chhattisgarh Vikas Upkar’. Even the Change in Swacch Bharat Cess at the rate of 0.5% on Service Tax for Operation Period and Change in Krishi Kalyan Cess at the rate of 5% on Service Tax for Operation Period, which had beengranted concurrently by the State Commission and the learned APTEL, were notified by the Union of India after the cut-off date. It could thus be seen that all these additional taxes or cesses were introduced by the instrumentalities of the Government of India or by the Government of Chhattisgarh. The same are issued under the provisions of the concerned statutes, rules, notifications, orders, etc. It is thus clear that they would amount to ‘Law’ within the meaning of the term ‘Law’ as defined in the PPAs. As such, no error can be found with the order of the learned APTEL. There is no merit in the appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. [Paras 142 – 145][232-B-F]
13. Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No.5372 of 2019
In the present matter, in addition to the claims granted by the CERC, the learned APTEL also granted the following claims:
(i) Change in NCDP (cancellation of Captive Block vis-à-vis tapering linkage), (ii) Busy Season Surcharge and Developmental Surcharge, (iii) Carrying Cost; and (iv) Add on Premium Price. Insofar as other claims which were concurrently allowed and disallowed by the CERC and the learned APTEL are concerned, in view of the concurrent findings, there is no reason to interfere with the same. The appeals of both DISCOMS as well as Generating Companies are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. [Paras 146, 151, 152][233-G-H; 234-A, E-F]
14. Civil Appeal No. 6641 of 2019
This appeal is filed by GKEL, being aggrieved by the concurrent denial of benefits on certain components. As already discussed herein above in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the CERC as well as the learned APTEL for disallowing the claims, there is no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. [Paras 153, 154][234-F-G]
15. Civil Appeal Nos. 5583-5584 of 2021
In the present case, the benefit is granted on following grounds: (i) Shortfall in domestic coal on account of Change in NCDP; (ii) Add on premium on account of existing tapering linkage by three years; (iii) Busy Season Surcharge. Insofar as Busy Season Surcharge is concerned, apart from there being concurrent findings of facts, reasons are already given herein above, as to how the same would amount to ‘Change in Law’. There is no merit in the appeals. The same are, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. [Paras 155, 157, 158][234-H; 235-A-C]
16. Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2021
The CERC has granted benefit on the following grounds. i. Shortfall in linkage coal on account of NCDP 2013 and SHAKTI Policy; ii. Change in coal quality pursuant to amendment of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986; iii. Increase in Busy Season Surcharge and Development Surcharge on transportation of coal by Indian Railways; and iv. Carrying cost on allowed ‘Change in Law’ claims. The view taken by the CERC has been affirmed by the learned APTEL. As such, the appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of fact. The other components, i.e. change in coal quality pursuant to amendment of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, and increase in Busy Season Surcharge and Development Surcharge on transportation of coal by Indian Railways, have already been considered by us herein to amount to ‘Change in Law’ events. The issue regarding ‘Carrying Cost’ has also ben considered. As such, no interference is warranted in the concurrent findings by the learned APTEL, especially in view of the judgments of this Court. The appeal is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. [Paras 159, 160, 163][235-D-F; 236-B-C]
17. Civil Appeal No. 5005 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 4089 of 2022
The appeals are filed being aggrieved by the order of the learned APTEL granting compensation on account of ‘EFC’ and ‘carrying cost’. Undisputedly, the EFC was imposed by CIL vide its Circular dated 19th December 2017. it is not in dispute that EFC has been paid by the Generators while paying the base price, other charges and statutory charges at the time of delivery of coal. As such, no interference is warranted with the said finding. Insofar as ‘carrying cost’ is concerned, As such, no interference, therefore, is warranted on the said issue also. There is no merit in the appeals. The same are, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. [Paras 164 – 168][236-D-F]
18.1 The CERC, SERCs and the learned APTEL are bodies consisting of experts in the field. Several appeals in the present batch arise out of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two statutory bodies having expertise in the field. In some of the matters, the appeals have been filed only for the sake of filing the same. Several rounds of litigation have taken place in some of the proceedings. Recently, this Court, in the case of MSEDCL v. APML & Ors. has noted that one of the reasons for enacting the Electricity Act, 2003 was that the performance of the Electricity Boards had deteriorated on account of various factors. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Electricity Act, 2003 would reveal that one of the main features for enactment of the Electricity Act was delicensing of generation and freely permitting captive generation. In the said judgment, the statement of the learned Attorney General made in the case of Energy Watchdog that the electricity sector, having been privatized, had largely fulfilled the object sought to be achieved by the Electricity Act was recorded. He had stated that delicensed electricity generation resulted in production of far greater electricity than was earlier produced. The learned Attorney General had further urged the Court not to disturb the delicate balance sought to be achieved by the Electricity Act, i.e. that the producers or generators of electricity, in order that they set up power plants, be entitled to a reasonable margin of profit and a reasonable return on their capital, so that they are induced to set up more and more power plants. At the same time, the interests of the end consumers also need to be protected. However, in spite of this position, litigations after litigations are pursued. Though the concurrent orders of statutory expert bodies cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or in violation of the statutory provisions, the same are challenged. Even the Standing Committee of Parliament, in its report, has recommended that there should be consistency and uniformity with regard to orders emanating from the status of ‘Change in Law’. It has also recommended that the provisions should also be made for certain percentage of payments of regulatory dues to be paid by DISCOMS in case the orders of regulators are being taken to learned APTEL/higher judiciary for their consideration and decision. The learned APTEL has also referred to the Policy Directive dated 27th August 2018 issued in terms of Section 107 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the MoP to the CERC, where it emphasized the need to ensure expeditious recovery of ‘Change in Law’ compensation. The learned APTEL has also referred to the Electricity (Timely Recovery of Costs due to Change in Law) Rules, 2021, notified by MoP on 22nd October 2021, which provide for timely recovery of compensation on account of occurrence of ‘Change in Law’ events. The learned APTEL found that the Haryana Utilities have been adopting dilatory tactics, which not only defeat the public policy but also have the undesirable fallout of adding to the burden of the end-consumers they profess to serve on account of increasing ‘Carrying Cost’. The learned APTEL further found that withholding of past payments, including towards taxes and duties by the DISCOMS, is in violation of the provisions of the PPAs, which casts a specific mandate on the procurer to honour the invoices raised, irrespective of dispute, and impose a specific bar against unilateral deductions/setting off. The ‘Change in Law’ events will have to accrue from the date on which Rules, Orders, Notifications are issued by the instrumentalities of the State. Even in spite of this finding, the DISCOMS are pursuing litigations after litigations. When the PPA itself provides a mechanism for payment of compensation on the ground of ‘Change in Law’, unwarranted litigation, which wastes the time of the Court as well as adds to the ultimate cost of electricity consumed by the end consumer, ought to be avoided. Ultimately, the huge cost of litigation on the part of DISCOMS as well as the Generators adds to the cost of electricity that is supplied to the end consumers. [Paras 128, 169 , 174-176][230-A; 237-A-E; 240-C-G; 241-A-C]
18.2 It is further to be noted that the appeal to this Court under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is only permissible on any of the grounds as specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As such, the appeal to this Court would be permissible only on substantial questions of law. However, as already observed herein, even in cases where well-reasoned concurrent orders are passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commissions and the learned APTEL, the same are challenged by the DISCOMS as well as the Generators. On account of pendency of litigation, which in some of the cases in this batch has been more than 5 years, non-payment of dues would entail paying of heavy carrying cost to the Generators by the DISCOMS, which, in turn, will be passed over to the end consumer. As a result, it will be the end consumer who would be at sufferance. Such unnecessary and unwarranted litigation needs to be curbed. [Paras 179][241-E-H]
18.3 The Union of India through Ministry of Power (“MoP”) is therefore, appealed to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by the DISCOMS to the Generating Companies, which would avoid huge carrying cost to be passed over to the end consumers. The Union of India, through MoP, may also evolve a mechanism to avoid unnecessary and unwarranted litigation, the cost of which is also passed on to the ultimate consumer. [Paras 181, 182][242-B-C]
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. & ors. Civil Appeal No. 6927 of 2021; Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 516 : [2014] 8 SCR 446; and 2014 (9) SCC 614 : [2014] 12 SCR 110; Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Limited and Others v. Union of India and Others (2007) 2 SCC 640 : [2006]
9 Suppl. SCR 954; Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another v. Adani Power (Mundra) Limited and another Civil Appeal No. 5684 of 2021;
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited and another Civil Appeal Nos. 677- 678 of 2021 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.