Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8736 OF 2013

TUPPADAHALLI ENERGY INDIA PVT LTD              Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

KARNATAKA ELEC. REG. COMM. & ANR               Respondent(s) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 10290-10291 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. On the interpretation of Clause 6.5 of the Power Purchase  Agreement,  both  the  Karnataka  Electricity Regulatory  Commission  (KERC)  and  the  Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) have taken a view that  it  is  actually  an  incentive  for  the  prompt payment  of  the  monthly  tariff  invoice.   Though Sh.S.Ganesh,  learned  senior  counsel,  persuasively submitted  that  it  is  only  a  one-time  expenditure contemplated under the Power Purchase Agreement, we too are unable to accept the contention.

2. No doubt, there is a provision under Clause 6.2 for interest on belated payment, but Clause 6.5(v) is actually a rebate for prompt payment of the monthly invoice.  The  view  thus  taken  by  the  KERC  and  the

Page 2

2

APTEL, being a plausible view, we do not find any substantial question of law so as to warrant us to exercise  our  powers  under  Section  125  of  the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.    

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ A. M. KHANWILKAR ]  

New Delhi; January 10, 2017.