MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED versus MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 5 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 08-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 21 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
   [2021] 5 S.C.R. 1056
1056
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY LIMITED
v.
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.1843 of 2021)
OCTOBER 08, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Electricity Act, 2003:
s.125 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Interference with – Power
purchase agreements – Change in law –On facts, petition u/s. 86 by
the appellant-State Electricity Distribution Company seeking that
the change in interest rate system by the RBI from Prime Lending
Rate (PLR) to Base Rate and then to Marginal cost of funds based
lending rate (MCLR) constituted change in law under the power
purchase agreements between the appellant and the “Power
Generating Companies”, so as to alter the rate of Late Payment
Surcharge(LPS) payable by the appellant to the power generating
companies – Dismissed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory
Commission(MERC)and issuance of direction to the appellant to
make payment of LPS within the time stipulated – Said order upheld
by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity – On appeal, held: Existence
of substantial question of law is sine qua non for second appeal u/
s 125 r/w s. 100 CPC – This Court would not make a factual enquiry
into the mode and manner in which the Power Generating Companies
meet their working capital requirements and interest that individual
Power Generating Companies pay to their lenders – Thus, no
substantial question of law involved in the instant appeal – RBI
notifications would tantamount to a change in law, however the
notification relating to alteration of the lending rates chargeable
by banks and financial institutions are not laws which relate to the
Power Purchase Agreements and are not applicable to the appellant
or to the Power Generating Companies engaged in distribution of
electricity and not of advancing loans –Furthermore, courts cannot
rewrite contract mutually executed by parties – Explicit terms of
contract always the final word with regard to intention of parties –
Thus, MERC acted within the scope of its power of regulatory
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
supervision in directing the appellant to make payment of LPS within
the time stipulated – APTEL rightly upheld the direction – In any
case, such a direction cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers
u/s. 125 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 100.
s. 125 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Grounds for – Held:
Appeal lies to this Court u/s 125 only on grounds permitted u/s 100
CPC – Condition precedent for entertaining an appeal u/s 124 is
the existence of a substantial question – Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 – s. 100.
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission(MERC) –
Power of – Held: MERC constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003
has all the trappings of a Court – MERC is a substitute for a Civil
Court in respect of all disputes between licensees and Power
Generating Companies.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 An appeal lies to this Court under Section 125
of the Electricity Act, 2003 only on grounds permitted in Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On a conjoint reading
of Section 125 of the 2003 Act with Section 100 CPC, it is
absolutely clear that an appeal to this Court lies on a substantial
question of law. The condition precedent for entertaining an appeal
under Section 125 is the existence of a substantial question.
[Para 148, 152][1122-C; 1123-E-F]
State Bank of India and Ors. v. S.N. Goyal (2008) 8
SCC 92 : [2008] 7 SCR 631; Nazir Mohamed v. J.
Kamala and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 676; Wardha
Power Company Limited v. Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co. Limited and Another (2016) 16 SCC
541; Tuppadahalli Energy India Private Limited v.
Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr
(2017) 11 SCC 194; Ramanuja Naidu v. V. Kanniah
Naidu and Another (1996) 3 SCC 392 : [1996] 3 SCR
239; Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty (1996) 6 SCC
166 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 582 – referred to.
1.2 It is not for this Court to re-analyze evidence adduced
before the forums below or to sit in appeal over concurrent findings
of facts. [Para 159][1128-G]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COM.
LTD. v. MERC & ORC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
1.3 There can be no doubt that a notification issued by the
Reserve Bank of India constitutes law. A Reserve Bank of India
notification which alters, modifies, cancels or replaces an earlier
notifi

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