M/S. KOTHARI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. versus TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 29-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] I S.C.R. 564 
A 
M/S. KOTHARI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
H 
v. 
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9748 of2003 etc.) 
JANUARY 29, 2016 
(RANJAN GOGOi, ARUN MISHRA AND 
PRAI<ULLA C. PANT, JJ.J 
Electricily- Concessional lariffto new Industries -Alleralion/ 
modificalion qf: by S/a/e - l'ursuanl to e1~force111enl of Tamil Nadu 
Rel'ision of Tariff Rates on Supp~v of Electrical Eneri;y Act, 1978 -
Permissibility al- On the principle of promissory estoppel - Held: 
There ca11 be no es/oppel against a sta/u/e - The pri11ciple of 
promissory estoppel would have no application lo !he case of !he 
beneficiaries of co11cessional lar{ff; so as lo enlilie them any righl 
lo continue !he concessional 1arif1 which was earlier gra/1/ed - The 
assessment of profit/loss of !he induslry for determining the 
applicalion of !he (JO.No. 861 doled 30. 04.1982 (whereby the /arijf 
rales were revised), was no/ arbitrwy or unjustified - Subsequent 
wilhdrawal of the G 0. would no/ invalidate the some - Decision to 
grant/refi1.ml qfconcessimwl power at different points of lime, should 
he lefl lo !he Slate and 1101 lo !he Cour/S - Tamil Nadu Revision of 
Tariff.Ra/es m1 Supply of Eleclrical Energy Act, 1971! · ss. 3 and 4 
Administrative Law ·· Principle of Promissorr £.vtoppel. 
Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited vs. State ()f VIiar Pradesh 
& Ors. 2011 (3) SC I 93: 2011 (3) SCR 134; Stale of 
Rajasthan vs . .J.K. Udaipur V<(vog Ltd. 2004 (7) SCC 
673: 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 812 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2011 (3) SCR 134 
referred to. 
Para 11 
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 812 
referred to. 
Para 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9748 
of2003 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.200 I of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 421 of 1995. 
564 
MIS_ KOTHARI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD_ v. TAMii. 
565 
NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. 
WITH 
C. A_ NOS. 9749 and 9750 OF 2003 
Pravin 1-L Parekh. Nalini (~hida1nbaran1. E. R .. Ku1nar. Anurag 
Tripathi. (lor M/s. Parekh & Co .. ). Krislman1urthi Swami. Nikhil Swami, 
Divya Swami. Prabha Swami. Anushree Menon. Yikas Mehta. Rakhi 
Mohanty. Prashant Singh for the Appellant. 
Subramonium Prasad. 13. Bala_ji. Sudhanshu. Utkarsh Srivastava 
for the Respondents_ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
RANJAN GOGOi, .I. I. These cases have been referred by a 
C 
two-Judges Bench of this Court on the question as to whether. iu the 
facts of the case. the principles or promissory cstoppel can be invoked in 
favour of the appellants so as to entitle them to the benefit of concessional 
tariff of e lcctric ity_ 
2. Civil Appeal No.9748 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 9750 of 
D 
2003 have identical facts. In fact the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 9750 
of2003 is the successor-in-interest of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 
9748 of2003.The facts in the third appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 9749 of 
2003 are also largely similar_ 
3. The appellant in C.A.No.9748 of2003 Mis. Kothari Industrial 
Corporation Ltd. had proposed to set up a caustic soda manufacturing 
unit at Mana Ii in the State o fTam i I Nadu_ As the nrnnll l:1ct uring process 
involved high consumption of electrical power, the appcl I ant applied for 
concessional tariff which was promised to it by a Government Letter 
dated 29 .6. 1976 for first fi vc years after commencement of production. 
In the said letter it was specifically mentioned that the rate at which the 
appellants were required to pay tariff would be below the rate applicable 
to the other two established caustic soda units in the State for the first 
three years and therealicr the rates will be at par with that of the other 
two units in the State. 
4. Admittedly the unit of the appellant had started commercial 
production with effect from Janumy, 1979. On 23.2.1979 the Tamil Nadu 
Revision of Tariff Rates on supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 
(hereinafter referred to as the ·'Act") came into force. 
5. Section 2(b) of the Act defines tariff in the following terms: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
"Tariff' means the rate of tariff leviable upon the consumption of 
any electrical energy in this State supplied by the Tamil Nadu 
Electricity Board and as specified in the Schedule to this Act." 
Section 3 of the Act provides that the tariff rates for consumption 
of electrical energy shall be as specified in the Schedule to the 
B 
Act. 
Under Section I the State Govern

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.