9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to pay to the power that has not been consumed by it. As long as agreement is not entered into between the parties for consuming 60,00,000 units, this clause will not have any relevance to adjudicate this case, thereby we hereby hold that this clause will not have any bearing on the claim raised by the Petitioner as there is no agreement between the parties obligating the Corporate Debtor to consume 60,00,000 units per year. Petition dismissed as misconceived. - CP/1397/IB/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2019 - MR B. S. V. PRAKASH KUMAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR S. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For The Operational Creditor : Mrs. Shobhana Krishnan, Advocate For The Corporate Debter : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Corporate Debtor) over and above the contracted quantity in accordance with Applicable Laws . 4. Besides this, the Corporate Debtor has simultaneously taken us to another Clause 20.8 stating that if at all any amendment is to be made to this PPA dated 24.09.2012; it has to be amended only with the written consent of both the parties . 5. As to the payment of monthly bills, the Corporate Debtor has taken us to other Clauses 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 stating that the Power Producer (Petitioner) shall raise bill on monthly basis for the quantity of energy found adjusted at User Member (Corporate Debtor) and current consumption charges bill for each month/billing period and the Power Producer (Petitioner) shall send th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Petitioner as to whether any consent was given by the Debtor for increasing supply to 60,00,000 units, this Petitioner has failed to show any material disclosing the Debtor agreeing for supply over and above 20,00,000 units as envisaged in the letter dated 23.02.2015. When no such intimation of extending the supply limit to 60,00,000 has been accepted, or no agreement has been entered into between the parties, the letter dated 23.02.2015 cannot be assumed as an agreement between the parties entitling this Petitioner to make a demand for payment to the units that have not been utilized by the Corporate Debtor. The twist here is in case capacity limit is increased then if the consumer has failed to utilize it to its full capacity, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner any more, this Petitioner has set up this case by sending this letter on 19.10.2017 by generating payment advice with ante dated bill i.e., 04.09.2017. By the time this letter sent by the petitioner, the term of five years as stated in the PPA was already over. 13. The Corporate Debtor counsel has also stated that this Petitioner has failed to place any material showing that the Debtor was required to pay towards unutilized banked unit charges at any point of time before the letter dated 19.10.2017. Therefore merely by saying through a letter from the side of the petitioner, it cannot be subscribed that the debtor has agreed to the offer made by this Petitioner on 23.02.2015, therefore this payment advice sent to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
