Summary
Both electricity-tariff appeals were dismissed. The statutory amendment excluding the specified deemed-generation incentive applied despite the earlier power-purchase agreement and the plant’s use of naphtha as alternative fuel. Recovery remained limited by limitation; correspondence without an acknowledgement of liability did not extend time. The generator’s claim for interest on normative loan capital before the period expressly agreed in the supplementary agreement was also rejected.
Issues
- Whether the statutory restriction on deemed-generation incentive applied to the plant and existing agreement.
- Whether correspondence extended time to recover excess incentive payments.
- Whether the generator could claim interest on normative loan capital for a period preceding the agreed entitlement.
Provisions considered
- Section 43A and tariff notification amended on 6 November 1995, Note (2), Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948The statutory tariff terms governed the parties despite contrary contractual contentions and excluded the specified deemed-generation incentive. (¶¶ 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Held
- Power-purchase terms could not override statutory tariff notifications. The agreement itself required tariff amendments to be taken into account. The contention that the restriction applied only to stations exclusively or predominantly fuelled by naphtha was rejected; the existing agreement did not insulate the generator from the amendment. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- The concurrent restriction of recovery to the three-year period preceding the application was upheld. Continued meetings and correspondence did not keep limitation indefinitely alive, and there was no acknowledgement by CLP sufficient to attract section 18 of the Limitation Act. (¶ 26)
- The supplementary agreement expressly recognised Rs.53.90 crores as own capital with a fourteen per cent annual payment for 1 July 2003 to 31 December 2009. That defined bargain did not support payment for an earlier period. The amount was equity treated fictionally as normative debt for tariff purposes, not an actual loan generating an independent legal or equitable interest entitlement. (¶¶ 7, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; statutory incentive restriction, limitation on recovery and rejection of the earlier-period interest claim maintained. No order as to costs.