2022 (2) TMI 1499 - SCH - Indian Laws

Non compliance of judgment of this Court - effect of change in law - whether the respondents were in contempt for failing to comply with the Supreme Court s order dated 31.08.2020 which mandated the payment of compensation to the petitioner due to a change in law scenario? - HELD THAT - As per the principle laid down by RERC and affirmed up till this Court the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.5344.75 crores up to March 2021. The said principle having been affirmed by the APTEL as well as by this Court and even in Review Petition cannot be reopened now. It cannot be disputed that after March 2021 also the petitioner would be entitled to payment on the basis of the same calculation which up to November 2021 comes to Rs.130.69 crores. As such the due amount upto November 2021 would be Rs.5344.75 Rs.130.69 5475.44 crores. Out of this amount of Rs.5475.44 crores the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.2426.81 crores in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. Hence as per the petitioner the balance amount of Rs.3048.63 crores would remain due to be paid up to November 2021. The interest at the maximum rate of 9% per annum as capped by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 31.08.2020 is to be applied on the said amount from the date the amount became due till the date of actual payment. The further claim of late payment surcharge amounting to Rs.2477.70 crores as per the petitioner would be a subject matter which the petitioner if so advised can claim before the appropriate forum as the same is not the subject in question in the present proceedings regarding which no directions have also been issued by this Court. Conclusion - The respondents are liable for contempt for not complying this Court s order dated 31.08.2020. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the principal amount (as per the terms/norms laid down in the judgment of this Court dated 31.08.2020) minus Rs.2426.81 crores deposited by the respondents in terms of the interim order dated 29.10.2018 (which as per the petitioner the balance payable amount would be Rs.3048.63 crores) along with interest as per the applicable SBAR for the relevant years which should not exceed 9% per annum (to be compounded annually) from the date the amount became due till the date of actual payment within four weeks from today failing which the respondents shall appear before this Court in person on the next date so as to enable this Court to frame charges. List on 31st March 2022.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered by the Court was whether the respondents were in contempt for failing to comply with the Supreme Court's order dated 31.08.2020, which mandated the payment of compensation to the petitioner due to a "change in law" scenario. Specifically, the issue revolved around the calculation and payment of the difference in cost between imported coal and domestic linkage coal, as well as the applicable interest on the unpaid amounts.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework involved the interpretation of the "change in law" provision as initially adjudicated by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC), upheld by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. The "change in law" provision allowed the petitioner to claim the difference between the actual landed cost of alternate coal/imported coal and the landed cost of domestic linkage coal.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court interpreted the "change in law" provision to mean that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the additional costs incurred due to the necessity of purchasing imported coal instead of domestic coal. This interpretation was consistently upheld by RERC, APTEL, and the Supreme Court, establishing a clear precedent for the calculation of compensation.

Key Evidence and Findings

The Court relied on the certified calculations provided by the petitioner's auditors, which were not disputed by the respondents. The calculations determined the compensation amount due to the petitioner, which included the difference in coal costs and the applicable interest as per the Court's order.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applied the established legal principles to the facts by determining that the petitioner was entitled to a total of Rs.5475.44 crores for the period up to November 2021, minus the Rs.2426.81 crores already paid under an interim order. This left a balance of Rs.3048.63 crores, which was due to the petitioner along with interest capped at 9% per annum, compounded annually.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The respondents argued that they had made regular payments that included the cost of imported coal, suggesting that the petitioner's claim was overstated. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, noting that the issue of "change in law" had been conclusively settled in favor of the petitioner by previous judgments, and the respondents' current arguments were inconsistent with their earlier positions.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that the respondents were liable for contempt for failing to comply with the Supreme Court's order. It directed the respondents to pay the outstanding principal amount, minus the interim payment, along with the applicable interest within four weeks, failing which the respondents were required to appear before the Court.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning

The Court held: "The question of any claim which the respondents may have against the petitioner, is not an issue before us. As per the principle laid down by RERC and affirmed up till this Court, the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.5344.75 crores up to March, 2021."

Core Principles Established

The core principle established was that the "change in law" provision entitled the petitioner to compensation for additional costs incurred due to changes in coal supply arrangements, and this entitlement was supported by consistent rulings from RERC, APTEL, and the Supreme Court.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The final determination was that the respondents had not complied with the Supreme Court's order regarding the payment of compensation, and they were directed to pay the outstanding amounts with interest within a specified period, failing which further contempt proceedings would ensue.