APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY AT NEW DELHI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

APL No. 358 OF 2022 &

IA No. 1310 OF 2022 Dated: 30th May, 2023 Present: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Chairperson Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member In the matter of:

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Through CMD/Director (finance)

The Mall, PSEB Head Office, Baradari Patiala, Punjab 147001 …Appellant VERSUS

1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.

Through its Authorised Signatory Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005

2. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

3^rd and 4^th Chanderlok Building 36, Janpath Road, New Delhi 110001 …Respondents Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anand K. Ganesan Ms. Swapna Seshadri Ms. Kritika Khanna Mr. Amal Nair Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. Puneet Jain Mr. Abhinav Gupta Mr. Harsh Jain Mr. Umang Mehta For R-1 JUDGMENT PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN, CHAIRPERSON

1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant - Punjab State Power Corporation Limited aggrieved by the Order passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (the "CERC" for short) in Petition No. 76/MP/2019 dated 20/07/2022 whereby they were held liable to pay Rs. 5.05 Crores to the first Respondent; they were directed to mutually resolve, payment of Rs. 2.09 Crores, with the first respondent; and to pay them Rs.

5 lakhs as cost/ compensation.

2. The Appellant – PSPCL, a company incorporated under provisions of the Companies Act, is an unbundled entity of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board and has been vested with the functions of generation and distribution of electricity in the State of Punjab. The 1st Respondent - Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, was established under the provisions of the Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Act, 1999 as the successor company of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The Appellant and the 1st Respondent were involved in three forms of inter-se transactions namely 'Sale of Energy', 'O&M Charges for 66kV Mukatsar-Ganganagar Line' and 'O&M Charges for 132 kV Moga-Mukatsar-Ludhiana Line'.

3. In its letter dated 16/10/2003, the 1^st Respondent claimed Rs.8.37 Crores as payable to it, for the period October, 1996 to March, 1999, under inter-state energy exchange on account of revised booking from Salal I & II for the period from October,1996 to March,1999; the invoice was stated to be due and payable within 10 days i.e., by 25/10/2003.

I. CASE OF THE APPELLANT:

4. It is the appellant’s case that the petition filed by the first respondent, before the CERC on 14/02/2019, arose out of a cause of action which accrued in the year 2003; no claims are maintainable except for the period of three years before the date of filing of the petition before the CERC i.e., prior to 15/02/2016; any claims prior thereto are barred by limitation; in AP Power Coordination Committee and Ors. v. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd and Ors: (2016) 3 SCC 468, the Supreme Court held that the limitation period of three (3) years would apply in adjudication proceedings initiated under Section 86 (1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is identical to Section 79 (1)(f); the Appellant’s office memo dated 13/11/2009 is not an acknowledgement of debt; under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 2003, acknowledgment of debt must be unqualified and unambiguous, and in any case must be made before the expiry of the limitation period for filing the suit; and, as has been held by this Tribunal, in GUVNL vs. Essar Power Limited (Order in Appeal Nos. 77 and 86 of 2009 dated 22/02/2010), mere writing of letters does not extend the period of limitation.

5. The Appellant submits that the case relates to a period so long ago, that the records of the case are not available; and they are in no position to decide on the claims of the first respondent; even presuming tht the entire case of the first respondent is correct, the CERC erred in ignoring the f