SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Nabha Power Limited – Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2425, 2426 of 2023
Decided On : 09-10-2023
Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 86(1)(a) read with Section 62 – Recovery of deductions of monthly tariff – Discrepancy in terms of yield loss and quality of washed coal usually happens when good quality of coal was diverted under garb of rejects in washing process, which should have been useful for generation of power and this in turn resulted in issue of mismatch of GCV – Coal is now directly delivered to project site and washing occurs there – Impugned order, innocuous as it may seem, is not sustainable – Dispute inter se parties is in nature of a contractual dispute – Normally, costs must go with succeeding party in case of a contractual dispute – This is more so where one party repeatedly seeks to evade rigors of orders. (Paras 16 and 23)
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The dispute, pertaining to recovery of deductions of monthly tariff by the respondent, gave rise to proceedings under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’), which travelled from the Regulatory Commission to the Appellate Tribunal and finally to this Court. The Supreme Court dealt with the matter in terms of the judgment in Nabha Power Limited (NPL) vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and Another, (2018) 11 SCC 508.
2. The limited aspect, on which relief was granted by this Court qua part of the amount, can be summarized as under:
(i) The Appellant is held entitled to the washing cost of coal, the transportation from the mine site via washing of coal to the project site inclusive of cost of road transportation for the period where it was necessary.
(ii) The Gross Calorific Value (“GCV”) of the coal would have to be taken at the project site.
(iii) The amount payable to the Appellant as the consequences thereof be remitted within a period of three months from the date of this order, failing which it would carry interest @ 12 per cent per annum (simple interest).
3. The respondent filed M.A. No. 1562/2017 in the aforesaid Civil Appeal praying for a direction to the State Commission to determine the amount payable by the respondent as per the aforesaid reported judgment of 05.10.2017 and grant the respondent reasonable time to make payment. This Court found no merit in the application in terms of the order dated 15.12.2017 and observed that it was for the respondent to calculate the amount payable and thereafter disburse the sum due under the judgment, which must be done within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
4. The next endeavour made by the respondent was through a Review Petition Civil No. 165/2018 seeking review of the order in the main judgment itself which was also dismissed on 06.02.2018 opining that having gone through the records there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
5. Despite the aforesaid proceedings, the appellant (Nabha Power Limited) was not paid the amount and, thus, they filed Contempt Petition No. 1277-1278/2018 (referred to as the ‘First Contempt Petition’) aggrieved by the non-release of payment. This Contempt Petition was tagged with another Contempt Petition No. 1766-1767/2018 filed by Talwandi Sabo Power Limited, the other appellant in one of the appeals before us. The orders passed in these Contempt proceedings dated 07.08.2019 and 03.09.2019, respectively, in identical terms, once again dealt with the controversy. By referring to the main judgment pronounced by this Court on 05.10.2017, the Bench came to the conclusion that on reading of the aforesaid, it is made crystal clear by the judgment observed as under:
“On a reading of the aforesaid, what becomes clear and what is made crystal clear by the judgment is the fact that, in the formula, both FCOALn and PCVn are costs/gross calorific value of coal which are actual in nature. This being so, when PCVn is spoken of in the formula, it makes it clear that what is referred to is the weighted average gross calorific value of coal as received at the project site on actuals thereof, and that includes total moisture content that is measured at the project site. Equally, what is meant in FCOALn in the formula, is the actual cost of purchase of unwashed coal, which would involve the actual grade of unwashed coal that is provided by the coal company to PSPCL. This being the case, we are of the view that the judgment has to be followed, both in letter and in spirit, by working the formula as aforesaid, and consequently, deleting alien figures in both numerator and denominator.”
6. The aforesaid would, thus, show that vide order dated 07.08.2019 the Court made it abundantly clear that the judgment should be followed in letter and spirit and disposed of the Contempt Petitions with a direction to pay the amount as a result of the order within a period of eight
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the relief in favor of the petitioner regarding the change in law, the calculation of the amount due, and the liability ....
Companies or juristic entities cannot be punished for contempt; specific individuals must be named for compliance responsibilities.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.