R. P. No. 7 & 8 of 2017 in Appeal Nos. 250 of 2015 & 242 of 2016

Page 1 of 15

In the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity

New Delhi

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Review Petition No. 7 and 8 of 2017

IN

Appeal Nos. 250 of 2015 and 242 of 2016 Respectively

Dated: 20^th February, 2018

Present:

Hon'ble Mr. I.J. Kapoor, Technical Member

Hon'ble Mr. N K Patil, Judicial Member

In the matter of

Jaigad Power Transco Ltd. (JPTL)

JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex

Bandra (East)

Mumbai-400 051

...Review Petitioner/ Appellant

Versus

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission

World Trade Centre, Centre No. 1, 13th Floor,

Cuffee Parade

Mumbai– 400 005

...Respondent

Counsel for the Review Petitioner/ Appellant:

Mr. Sanjay Sen, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Aman Anand

Mr. Aman Dixit

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan

Mr. Raunak Jain

R. P. No. 7 & 8 of 2017 in Appeal Nos. 250 of 2015 & 242 of 2016

Page 2 of 15

1. These Review Petition Nos. 7 of 2017 and 8 of 2017 are being filed

by M/s JPTL (hereinafter referred to as the “Review Petitioner/

Appellant”) under Section 120 (2) (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003

(“the Act”) for review of the judgments dated 11.05.2017

(“Impugned Judgements”) of this Tribunal passed in Appeal Nos.

250 of 2015 & 242 of 2016 (“the Appeals”) respectively filed by the

Appellant on the decision of this Tribunal on certain questions raised

in the Appeals. The said questions are generalized and are

reproduced below:

JUDGMENT

These Review Petitions are mainly filed on two issues i.e. whether

Delayed Payment Charge (DPC) can be considered as a part of

R. P. No. 7 & 8 of 2017 in Appeal Nos. 250 of 2015 & 242 of 2016

Page 3 of 15

Non-Tariff Income (NTI) and what should be the rate of interest on

carrying cost i.e. whether simple rate of interest or compounded rate

of interest. Third question is the offshoot of the earlier two

questions.

2. This Tribunal vide judgement dated 11.5.2017 in Appeal No. 250 of

2015 has upheld the order dated 26.6.2015 (“Impugned Order”)

passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Petition filed

by the Review Petitioner seeking approval of True up of Aggregate

Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 and

Revised estimates of ARR for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16.This

Tribunal vide judgement dated 11.5.2017 in Appeal No. 242 of 2016

has upheld the order dated 27.6.2016 (“Impugned Order”) passed

by the State Commission in Case No. 12 of 2016 for Truing up of

ARR for FY 2014-15, Provisional Truing up for FY 2015-16 and

approval of ARR for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2019-20. The

issues raised in the Review Petitions are being dealt vide this

common order. The True up of ARR for the period from FY 2012-13

to FY 2015-16 are governed by the Tariff Regulations, 2011 of the

State Commission and the issues are confined to this period only.

3. The Review Petitions are limited to the decision of this Tribunal

upholding the decision of the State Commission on certain questions

raised in the Appeals as reproduced at S. No. 1 above.

4. We have heard at length the learned senior counsel for the Review

Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent and considered

R. P. No. 7 & 8 of 2017 in Appeal Nos. 250 of 2015 & 242 of 2016

Page 4 of 15

their arguments and written submissions. Gist of the same is

discussed hereunder;

a)

The learned senior counsel for the Review Petitioner has made

the following arguments and submissions for our consideration.

i. This Tribunal has not dealt with all the contentions raised

by the Appellant raised in the Appeals on the issue related

to consideration of DPC as NTI. This Tribunal has not dealt

with the legal principle and commercial purpose for

allowing recovery of DPC, the nature of income that could

be included in NTI and the approach rendering Regulation

68 totally nug