Execution Petition No.1 Of 2017 and Appeal No.228 Of 2012. Case: Ms. S. N. J. Sugars And Products Limited Vs Transmission Corporationof Andhra Pradesh Limited and Ors.. APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity)
| Case Number | Execution Petition No.1 Of 2017 and Appeal No.228 Of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr.Adv., Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Mr. A.Sashidharan, Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, Mr. A. Venayagam Balan and Mr. Mythili Vijay Kumar Thallam, Advs.and For Respondents: Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil Sr. Adv, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma and Mr. Aditya Singh, Advs. |
| Judges | Smt. Ranjana P. Desai, Chairperson and Shri I.J. Kapoor, Technical Member |
| Issue | Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 120(3) |
| Judgement Date | May 31, 2017 |
| Court | APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity) |
Order:
-
The Petitioner -- M/s S N J Sugars and Products Limited is the Appellant in Appeal No.228 of 2012. It has filed the present petition under Section 120(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for execution of the judgment and order dated 04/02/2013 passed in the aforesaid appeal.
-
For the disposal of this execution petition it is not necessary to narrate all the facts. We shall state facts which have a bearing on this execution petition.
-
The Petitioner has set up a sugar plant with co-generation power plant with 20 MW capacity. The Petitioner proposed to use bagasse as a fuel for power generation. The Petitioner entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with Respondent No.1 -- Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited ("APTRANSCO") on 10/07/2002 for supply of power. Disputes arose between the Petitioner and APTRANSCO. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7395 of 2003 challenging APTRANSCO''s letter dated 17/03/2003 stating that the Petitioner could not be classified as a co-generation plant as the sugar plant of the Petitioner was not commissioned. An interim order was passed by learned Single Judge on 02/05/2003 directing APTRANSCO to purchase power from the Petitioner and to pay to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.2.00 per unit. In the meantime APTRANSCO filed a review petition before the State Commission for cancellation of the earlier directions issued on 17/03/2003 to amend the PPA. By its order dated 01/10/2003, the State Commission cancelled the said order. The Petitioner challenged the said order in the High Court by filing an appeal being CMA No.3613 of 2003. Writ Petition No.7395 of 2003 was disposed of by learned Single Judge of the High Court on 15/12/2003 by quashing APTRANSCO''s letter dated 17/03/2003. APTRANSCO challenged this order by filing writ appeal being W.A. No.191 of 2004. The Division Bench of the High Court by its Order dated 30/07/2004 disposed of writ appeal of APTRANSCO as well as appeal filed by the Petitioner. The order of the Single Judge was set aside and parties were directed to approach the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute as per the PPA.
-
The Petitioner challenged the order of the Division Bench dated 30/07/2004 by filing Civil Appeal Nos.5159 and 5157 of 2005. The Supreme Court by its Order dated 13/10/2011 disposed of the said appeal by remanding the matter to the State Commission and directing the State Commission to decide the dispute between the parties as to whether during the disputed period between 13/01/2003 and 21/01/2004 i.e. when the sugar plant of the Petitioner had not commenced its production of sugar, the unutilized power supplied by the Petitioner to APTRANSCO will have the same price at par with the price of power supplied by other non-conventional energy projects earlier determined by the State Commission and fix the price of supply of power by the Petitioner to APTRANSCO during the disputed period.
-
Pursuant to the directions of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial