Summary
The Court dismissed the distribution company’s appeal seeking to replace the contractual SBI prime-lending-rate benchmark for late-payment surcharge with Base Rate or MCLR. RBI lending directions did not alter these power-purchase agreements, which expressly incorporated SBI PLR and required mutual agreement on a substitute if that rate became unavailable. The agreed surcharge remained enforceable; lower alleged borrowing costs did not establish unjust enrichment. No substantial question of law justified interference with the concurrent decisions or payment directions.
Issues
- Whether RBI’s introduction of Base Rate and MCLR changed the contractual late-payment-surcharge benchmark.
- Whether the agreed surcharge should be reduced on compensation, hardship or unjust-enrichment grounds.
- Whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law and the time-bound payment directions were permissible.
Provisions considered
- Section 125, Electricity Act, 2003The appeal required a substantial question of law and could not reopen the concurrent factual findings about the continuing availability of SBI PLR. (¶¶ 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 164, 165, 166, 167, 193, 207, 208)
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The substantial-question requirement governed the statutory appeal by incorporation through Section 125. Stakes or disagreement with factual findings were insufficient. (¶¶ 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court found no reason on these facts to reduce the agreed surcharge or alter the parties’ bargain. (¶¶ 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 201, 202)
Held
- RBI notifications could constitute law, but the lending-rate directions did not govern the parties’ electricity-sale contract or trigger its change-in-law clauses. The agreements expressly incorporated SBI PLR, which remained available on the concurrent findings. No automatic substitution by Base Rate or MCLR followed. (¶¶ 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 180, 181)
- The specific provision requiring mutual agreement on a substitute when SBI PLR was absent excluded unilateral reliance on the general change-in-law provision to rewrite the surcharge formula. Courts had to enforce the express commercial bargain. (¶¶ 168, 170, 171, 172, 177, 178, 180)
- Under these agreements, the relevant tariff adjustments concerned the price of electricity supplied. Late-payment surcharge was triggered by payment default, encouraged timely payment and was distinct from tariff and actual financing or carrying cost. Allegedly cheaper financing did not make the contractual recovery unjust enrichment. (¶¶ 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 180, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194)
- The undisputed delayed energy bills and agreed rate supplied no basis for a reduction under Article 142. The earlier Jaipur Vidyut decision concerned materially different circumstances. Pandemic hardship did not explain defaults predating the pandemic, and financial difficulties did not transfer their consequences to the generators. (¶¶ 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 201, 202)
- The time-bound payment directions were upheld within the regulatory and appellate framework. No substantial question justified intervention. The Court also declined the attempt to introduce fresh RTI material after conclusion of the hearing to reopen admitted and concurrently determined facts. (¶¶ 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209)
Result
Appeal dismissed; APTEL judgment affirming MERC’s rejection of the claim and the directions for payment of contractual late-payment surcharge left undisturbed.