SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 50

KURIAN JOSEPH, A.M.KHANWILKAR
TUPPADAHALLI ENERGY INDIA PVT LTD. – Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA ELEC. REG. COMM. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., Vikas Dutta, Siddharth Silwal, Shadan Farasat, Anantha Padmanabhan, P.J. Janani, K.V. Vijayakumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Anand K. Ganesan, Ms. Neha Garg, Tushar Bakshi, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Kurian, J.

On the interpretation of Clause 6.5 of the Power Purchase Agreement, both the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) have taken a view that it is actually an incentive for the prompt payment of the monthly tariff invoice. Though Sh. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel, persuasively submitted that it is only a one-time expenditure contemplated under the Power Purchase Agreement, we too are unable to accept the contention.

2. No doubt, there is a provision under Clause 6.2 for interest on belated payment, but Clause 6.5(v) is actually a rebate for prompt payment of the monthly invoice. The view thus taken by the KERC and the APTEL, being a plausible view, we do not find any substantial question of law so as to warrant us to exercise our powers under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. The appeals are, accordingly, appeals .

No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top