9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 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 j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Adv. Mr. Nikunj Dayal, AOR Ms. Poorva Saigal, Adv. Mr. Shubham Arya, Adv. Ms. Srishti Khindaria, Adv. Ms. Shikha Sood, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv. ORDER This Contempt Petition has been filed by Adani Power Rajasthan Limited alleging noncompliance of judgment of this Court dated 31.08.2020, against which the Review Petition No.18111812 of 2020 has also been dismissed on 02.03.2021. 2. In short, the dispute in the Civil Appeal was with regard to the certain additional payments which the petitioner claims that it was entitled to because of "change in law". Very briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was to supply electricity to the respondentDiscoms, which was to be generated by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner was to be paid the difference between the actual landed cost of alternate coal/imported coal minus the actual landed cost of domestic linkage coal. This Court, by its judgment dated 31.08.2020, had limited the relief to the extent that the respondentDiscoms were to pay interest/late payment surcharge only as per the applicable SBAR for the relevant years, which should not exceed 9% with annual compounding. 4. It is noteworthy that after the Order was passed by RERC, while the matter was pending before the APTEL, an interim order was passed by APTEL that pending final decision of the appeal, the Discoms shall pay 70% of the compensation claimed/demanded by the petitioner, as provisional compensation, within two weeks. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest comes to Rs.1469.19 crores and, thus, it is claimed by the petitioner that the amount of Rs.4517.82 crores remained due to be paid for the period up to November, 2021. 5. It is further claimed by the petitioner that since the respondents have not paid the said amount even after the decision of this Court, a further amount of Rs.2477.70 crores would be payable to the petitioner towards late payment surcharge as per the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) provision (i.e. SBI PLR + 2%) for the period post due date after billing based on RERC and APTEL Orders in accordance with Article 8.3.5 of the PPA and up to November, 2021. 6. Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as at that stage i.e. in the year 2013, the respondents had not accepted the claim of the petitioner with regard to "change in law", and the assertion now being made by the respondents that they had paid certain amount after partially accepting the "change in law" theory cannot be accepted, as this issue had never been raised by respondents in any proceedings earlier, as the respondents had, in fact, throughout contested that the petitioner is not entitled to the "change in law" benefit. 7. Per contra, Shri C. A. Sundaram learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that the regular demands made by the petitioner from the year 2013, included the portion of the price of imported coal as "change in law" becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain amount due to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents. He has thus urged that this contempt petition may be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for both the parties at length and have carefully perused the material on record. 9. Firstly, what we have to consider is only the effect of "change in law", which as per RERC, APTEL and this Court would be the actual landed cost of alternate coal/imported coal minus the landed cost of domestic linkage coal. 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. The said prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
