LexM/S. DLF POWER LIMITED versus CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MIS. DLF POWER LIMITED v. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. AND ANR. JULY 11, 2007 B [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] Electricity Laws: Electricity tariff-Fixation of-Power purchase agreement-Need for c verification of capitalization of the costs incurred upto commissioning of Appellants· power plants-Direction to appoint Cost Accountants for the purpose. Respondent No.I filed appeal before tbe Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ch;:illenging the order dated 4th Deceinber, 2004 as amended by D order dated 28th February, 2005 passed by ·the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as incompetent and not maintainable. Hence the present appeals. During the course of hearing, this Court felt the need for verification of the capitalization of the costs incurred upto commissioning of appellants' power plants at Rajrappa and Gidi by reputed E Cost Accountants. Adjourning the matters and issuing certain directions, the Court HELD: The Cost Accounts Wing of Mis Ernst & Young, Chartered Accountants is directed to determine the actual capital costs based on the F formula for the power purchase agreement between Coal India Ltd. and Mis DLF Power Company Ltd. for the aforesaid two plants. Copies of the report of the Cost Accounts Wing shall be given to the parties and also submitted to the State Commission. On receipt of the report, the Commission shall determine the tariff as per the terms of the power purchase agreement between the parties for tile two power plants. For the purpose oherification, necessary G datas and information shall be made 2vailable to the Cost Accounts Wing as may be required. Within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report from the Cost Accounts Wing the State Commission shall determine the tariffs. Copies of the tariff order shall be issued to the parties and shall also be submitted before this Court. lo case M/s Ernst & Young H 266 I . -r· ( _, MIS. DLF POWERLIMITED•·.CENTRALCOALFIELDS LTD. [PASAYAT.J] 267 Chartered Accountants express any difficulty, ~ithin a period of three weeks, A the Cost Accounts Wing of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd., shall undertake the assignment as directed above. (Para 5) (268-F-H; 269-A) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3109 of2006. From the Final Judgment & Order dated 11.05.2006 of the Appellate B Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi in Appeal No. 166 of2005. WITH C.A. No. 3561 of2006. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., Kamal Budhiraja, Amit Dhingra, Nishant Menon. Manu Seshadri, Richa Mishra (for Dua Associates), Ajit Kumar Sinha, Kamlendra Mishra and Shiraz Contractor Patodia for the Appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. l. Challenge in these appeals is to the order ' dated I Ith May, 2006, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (in short 'Appellate Tribunal'). The appeal was filed by the respondent No. I to set aside the order dated 4th December, 2004 as amended by order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, c D Ranchi (in short the 'State Commission'). 'E 2. While disposing of the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held as follows: "In the result- (i) On the first point, we hold that the Regulatory Commission has ,F neither the authority nor jurisdiction in terms of The Electricity Act 2003 to fix a tariff between the appellant a consumer and the second Respondent a generator being a commercial transaction pure and simple, which relationship is governed by an existing PPA. We also hold that it is not an order or a tariff determination/order by the Regulatory Commission falling under one or more the provisions of G The Electricity Act 2003, which alone is appellable. (ii) On the second point, we hold that the Regulatory Commission as an expert Arbitral Tribunal has resolved the dispute as referred to it by parties to the dispute on invitation and it is an award in terms of the PPA entered between the parties and it is enforceable as it has all H 268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R. A the force of an arbitral award passed by a validly constituted Arbitral Tribunal. (iii) On the third point, we hold that no appeal is maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and appeal deserves to be rejected as not maintainable, as it is not in dispute that in law as against the B award of an Arbitral Tribunal no appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.