9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court vs. the Commission. 2. Interpretation of the Power Purchase Agreement, specifically the term "Installed Capacity." 3. Application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Applicability of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 and Electricity Act, 2003. Summary: Jurisdiction of the Civil Court vs. the Commission: The primary issue was whether the City Civil Court or the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The Appellant contended that u/s 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act, only the Commission could arbitrate disputes between licensees and generating companies, thus barring the Civil Court's jurisdiction. The High Court granted an injunction against the Appellant, which was contested, arguing that the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction. Interpretation of the Power Purchase Agreement: The dispute centered around the interpretation of "Installed Capacity" as defined in the Power Purchase Agreement. The Appellant argued that capacity charges should be based on 334.75 MW x Rh factor with a tolerance limit of ±5%, whereas the Respondent maintained that the capacity was 368.144 MW as per tests conducted. The Respondent contended that the Appellant could not unilaterally revise the terms for bill payments without arbitration. Application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The Respondent filed an application u/s 9 of the 1996 Act for a permanent injunction against the Appellant's unilateral decision. The City Civil Court dismissed this application, stating that the Commission had jurisdiction. However, the High Court set aside this order, granting an injunction pending resolution by the City Civil Court. The Appellant argued that the High Court erred in granting the injunction, as the Commission had the authority to arbitrate. Applicability of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 and Electricity Act, 2003: The Appellant filed an application before the Commission u/s 37(1) of the 1998 Act and Section 86(1)(f) read with Section 174 of the 2003 Act, asserting that the Commission alone had jurisdiction. The Respondent's writ petition against the Commission's jurisdiction led to an interim stay by the High Court. The Supreme Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the statutory interpretation, leaving it to the High Court for detailed consideration. Determination: The Supreme Court observed that the High Court must ultimately determine the jurisdictional issue and the applicability of the arbitration clause. The Court noted that the Respondent had raised triable issues, including the interpretation of "Installed Capacity" and the propriety of unilateral actions by the Appellant. The Court emphasized maintaining the status quo pending arbitration and requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of the related writ petition and Section 11 application. The appeal was dismissed, with the Supreme Court urging the High Court to resolve the matters expeditiously within six weeks, keeping all contentions open for final adjudication.
|
