REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5865 OF 2018

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN  NIGAM LTD. [UHBVNL] & ANR. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

ADANI POWER LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6190 OF 2018

JUDGMENT

R.F. NARIMAN, J.  

1. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5865 of 2018 are Uttar Haryana

Bijli  Vitran Nigam Ltd.  and Dakshin  Haryana Bijli  Vitran Nigam Ltd.

[collectively  referred  to  as  the  “Haryana  Discoms”],  which  are

distribution licensees in the State of  Haryana. The appellant in Civil

Appeal  No.  6190  of  2018  is  the  Gujarat  Urja  Vikas  Nigam  Ltd.

[“GUVNL”], which has been assigned with the task of procuring power

1

by  the  State  of  Gujarat.  The  respondent,  Adani  Power  Ltd.,  is  a

generating company in terms of  Section 2(18) of  the Electricity Act,

2003 and has a 4620 MW coal-fired power plant at Mundra, District

Kutch, Gujarat. On 23.06.2005, the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005

[“SEZ Act”]  was enacted. Section 26 of this Act provides that every

Developer  shall  be  entitled  to  various  exemptions,  such  as  duty

leviable  under  the  Customs  Act,  1962,  Customs  Tariff  Act,  1975,

Central Excise Act, 1944, etc. The Government of India approved the

respondent  as  a  Co-Developer  (which  is  included  within  the  term

“Developer”). The Ministry of Commerce and Industry [“MoC&I”], by a

letter dated 19.12.2006, granted approval to the appellant for setting up

a  power  plant  in  the  aforesaid  SEZ.  Thus,  the  appellant  has

established the aforesaid power plant in four phases consisting of four

units of 330 MW in Phase I and II, two units of 660 MW in Phase III,

and three units of 660 MW in Phase IV. The respondent has entered

into various Power Purchase Agreements [“PPAs”] with the appellant.

We are concerned in the present case with the PPAs dated 07.08.2008

and 02.02.2007. The MoC&I,  vide notification dated 06.04.2015 has

withdrawn the exemption of all duties under the Customs Act, Customs

Tariff Act, Central Excise Act, etc. on goods imported/procured by the

2

respondent for authorized operations w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Equally,  vide

notification  dated  16.02.2016,  fiscal  benefits  including  exemption  of

service  tax  on  power  plants  approved  prior  to  27.02.2009  was

promulgated, as a result of which, exemption from service tax, to which

the respondent was entitled, has been withdrawn. On 15.10.2015, the

respondent  filed  Petition  No.  235/MP/2015  before  the  Central

Electricity  Regulatory  Commission  [“CERC”  or  “Commission”],

seeking compensation for change in law by invoking Article 13 of the

respective PPAs. On 04.05.2017, the CERC allowed, as a change in

law, the added cost by way of payment of tax consequent to withdrawal

of the exemption notifications thus:

“35. …… However, the change in rates of custom duty, excise duty, withholding tax and service tax on taxable services which have been imposed pursuant to the Acts passed  by  the  Parliament  shall  be  covered  under Change in Law. As regards the Green Energy Cess, it was  imposed  after  the  cut-off  date  and  satisfied  the requirements  of  Change  in  Law.  Accordingly,  the Petitioner shall therefore be entitled for reimbursement of custom duty, excise duty on import/procurement of any other  goods  and  service  tax  on  the  spares  and consumables payable by it from 1.4.2015 on account of the withdrawal of exemption to the power plants located in  the  SEZ  by  the  Ministry  of  Commercial  [sic Commerce] and Industry only to the extent of difference in the duty or tax as on the cut-off date and as prevailing as on 1.4.2015 and thereafter.”

3

However,  the  CERC  followed  its  earlier  order  dated  06.02.2017  in

Petition No.156/MP/2014, in which it stated that “carrying cost” under

Article 13 of the PPA must be given to the respondent as it is to be

restored to the same economic position as if the change in law – which

is withdrawal of the exemption notifications – did not take place. After

setting out Article 13 of the PPA and distinguishing a Supreme Court

judgment in  National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v.  Madhya

Pradesh  State  Electricity  Board,  (2011)  15  SCC  580  [“National

Thermal  Power  Corporation  Ltd.”], the  Commission  came  to  the

conclusion that there is no provision in the PPA for payment of carrying

cost for the period from the date of the change in law till the date of

approval  by the Commission.  This being the case,  the Commission

held  that  the  prayer  of  the  respondent  to  grant  carrying  cost  on

restitutionary principles from the date of change in law till the date of

decision  cannot  be  allowed.  By  the  impugned  judgment  of  the

Appellate  Tribunal  for  Electricity  [“Appellate  Tribunal”]  dated

13.04.2018, the Appellate Tribunal went through the relevant provisions

of the PPAs and finally observed :

“x. Further, the provisions of Article 13.2 i.e. restoring the  Appellant  to  the  same  economic  position  as  if Change in Law has not occurred is in consonance with

4

the  principle  of  ‘restitution’  i.e.  restoration  of  some specific thing to its rightful status. Hence, in view of the provisions  of  the  PPA,  the  principle  of  restitution  and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India & Ors., we are of  the considered opinion that  the Appellant  is eligible for Carrying Cost arising out of approval of the Change in Law events from the effective date of Change in Law till the approval of the said event by appropriate authority. It is also observed that the Gujarat Bid-01 PPA have no provision for restoration to the same economic position  as  if  Change  in  Law  has  not  occurred. Accordingly, this decision of allowing Carrying Cost will not be applicable to the Gujarat Bid-01 PPA.”

Accordingly,  carrying  cost  was  allowed  and  the  judgment  of  the

Commission was set aside.   

2. Shri  G.  Umapathy,  learned Advocate,  and  Shri  V.  Giri,  learned

Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants in these appeals have

argued before us that the judgment of the Commission was correct and

that  since carrying costs are not  part  of  the PPAs in  question,  any

resort to rules of equity and interest being granted on rules of equity

cannot be resorted to. For this purpose, they relied upon judgments of

this Court.  According to them, therefore, the finding of the Appellate

Tribunal ought to be set aside.  

5

3. On the other hand, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate

appearing  on  behalf  of  the  respondent,  supported  the  Appellate

Tribunal judgment and stated that the Appellate Tribunal has not gone

outside the four corners of the PPA. Since Article 13.2, in particular,

expressly  provides  a  restitutionary  principle,  the  respondents  are

entitled to avail of the same.

4. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is

necessary  to  set  out  certain  provisions  of  the  PPAs.  Thus,  Articles

11.3.1 and 11.3.4 state as follows:

“11.3 Payment of Monthly Bills

11.3.1 The Procurer shall pay the amount payable under Monthly  Bill  on  the  Due  Date  to  such  account  of  the Seller,  as  shall  have  been  previously  notified  by  the Seller to the Procurer in accordance with Article 11.3.3 below.

All payments made by the Procurer shall be appropriated by the Seller in the following order of priority:

1.  towards  Late  Payment  Surcharge,  payable by the Procurer, if any; 2.  towards  earlier  unpaid  Monthly  Bill,  if  any; and 3. towards the then current Monthly Bill.”

xxx xxx xxx

“11.3.4. In the event of delay in payment of a Monthly Bill by any procurer beyond its Due Date, a Late Payment Surcharge shall be payable by the Procurer to the Seller

6

at the rate of two (2) percent in excess of the applicable SBAR  per  annum,  on  the  amount  of  outstanding payment,  calculated  on  a  day  to  day  basis  (and compounded  with  Monthly  rest),  for  each  day  of  the delay.”

Articles 11.8.1 and 11.8.3 are also important and provide as follows:

“11.8. Payment of Supplementary Bill

11.8.1 Either Party may raise a bill  on the other Party (“Supplementary Bill”) for payment on account of:

i. Adjustments required by the Regional Energy Account (if applicable); ii.  Tariff  Payment  for  change  in  parameters, pursuant to provisions in Schedule-5; or iii. Change in Law as provided in Article 13

and such Bill shall be paid by the other Party.”

xxx xxx xxx

“11.8.3  In  the  event  of  delay  in  payment  of  a Supplementary  Bill  by  either  Party  beyond one month from the date of billing, a Late Payment Surcharge shall be payable at same terms applicable to the Monthly Bill in Article 11.3.4.”

Article 18.17 states as follows:

“18.17 No Consequential or Indirect Losses

The liability of the Seller and the Procurer shall be limited to  that  explicitly  provided  in  this  Agreement.  Provided that  notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  this Agreement,  under  no  event  shall  the  Procurer  or  the Seller  claim  from  one  another  any  indirect  or consequential losses or damages.”

7

5. Ultimately,  the  result  of  this  appeal  depends  upon  the

interpretation  of  Article  13  of  the  PPAs  which  is  set  out  in  full

hereinbelow:

“13. ARTICLE 13 – CHANGE IN LAW

13.1 Definitions In  this  Article  13,  the  following  terms  shall  have  the following meanings:

13.1.1 “Change in Law” means the occurrence of any of the following events after  the date,  which is seven (7) days prior to the Bid Deadline:

(i) the enactment, bringing into effect, adoption, promulgation,  amendment,  modification  or repeal,  of  any  Law  or  (ii)  a  change  in interpretation of any Law by a Competent Court of  law,  tribunal  or  Indian  Governmental Instrumentality  provided  such  Court  of  law, tribunal or Indian Governmental Instrumentality is  final  authority  under  law  for  such interpretation  or  (iii)  change  in  any  consents, approvals or licenses available or obtained for the  Project,  otherwise  than  for  default  of  the Seller,  which results in any change in any cost of  or  revenue  from  the  business  of  selling electricity  by the Seller  to  the Procurer  under the terms of this Agreement;

but  shall  not  include  (i)  any  change  in  any withholding  tax  on  income  or  dividends distributed to the shareholders of the Seller, or (ii)  change  in  respect  of  UI  Charges  or frequency  intervals  by  an  Appropriate Commission.

8

Provided that if Government of India does not extend  the  income  tax  holiday  for  power generation projects under Section 80 IA of the Income  Tax  Act,  upto  the  Scheduled Commercial  Operation  Date  of  the  Power Station, such non-extension shall be deemed to be a Change in Law (applicable only in case the Seller  envisaging  supply  from  the  Project awarded the status of “Mega Power Project” by Government of India).

13.1.2 “Competent Court” means: The Supreme Court or any High Court, or any tribunal or any similar judicial or quasi-judicial body in India that has jurisdiction  to  adjudicate  upon  issues  relating  to  the Project.  

13.2 Application  and  Principles  for  computing impact of Change in Law While determining the consequence of Change in Law under this Article 13, the Parties shall have due regard to the principle that the purpose of compensating the Party affected by such Change in Law, is to restore through Monthly Tariff  Payments, to the extent contemplated in this Article 13, the affected Party to the same economic position as if such Change in Law has not occurred.  

a) Construction Period As  a  result  of  any  Change  in  Law,  the  impact  of increase/decrease of Capital Cost of the Project in the Tariff shall be governed by the formula given below:

For  every  cumulative  increase/decrease  of  each Rs.8,90,00,000  [sic]  (Rupees  eight  crore  ninety  lakh only) Rupees of the Contracted Capacity in the Capital Cost  over  the  term  of  this  Agreement,  the increase/decrease in Quoted Capacity Charges shall be an amount equal to zero point two two seven (0.227%) per cent of the Quoted Capacity Charges. Provided that the Seller provides to the Procurer documentary proof of such increase/decrease in Capital Cost for establishing

9

the impact of such Change in Law.  In case of Dispute, Article 17 shall apply.  

It  is  clarified  that  the  above  mentioned  compensation shall be payable to either Party, only with effect from the date  on  which  the  total  increase/decrease  exceeds amount  of  Rs.8,90,00,000  [sic]  (Rupees  eight  crore ninety lakh only)

b) Operation Period As a result of Change in Law, the compensation for any increase/decrease in revenues or cost to the Seller shall be determined and effective from such date, as decided by the Appropriate Commission whose decision shall be final and binding on both the Parties, subject to rights of appeal provided under applicable Law.

Provided that the above mentioned compensation shall be payable only if and for increase/decrease in revenues or cost to the Seller is in excess of an amount equivalent to 1% of Letter of Credit in aggregate for a Contract Year.

13.3 Notification of Change in Law 13.3.1 If  the Seller  is affected by a Change in Law in accordance  with  Article  13.2  and  wishes  to  claim  a Change in Law under this Article it shall give notice to the Procurer of such Change in Law as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of the same or should reasonably have known of the Change in Law.

13.3.2 Notwithstanding Article 13.3.1, the Seller shall be obliged  to  serve  a  notice  to  the  Procurer  under  this Article 13.3.2 if it is beneficially affected by a Change in Law. Without prejudice to the factor of materiality or other provisions contained in this Agreement, the obligation to inform the Procurer contained herein shall  be material. Provided that in case the Seller has not provided such notice,  the Procurer shall  have the right  to issue such notice to the Seller.

13.3.3 Any notice served pursuant to this Article 13.3.2 shall provide, amongst other things, precise details of:

10

(a) the Change in Law; and (b) the  effects  on  the  Seller  of  the  matters referred to in Article 13.2

13.4 Tariff  Adjustment  Payment  on  account  of Change in Law 13.4.1  Subject to Article 13.2, the adjustment in Monthly Tariff Payment shall be effective from:

(i) the  date  of  adoption,  promulgation, amendment, re-enactment or repeal of the Law or Change in Law; or

(ii) the date of order/judgment of the Competent Court  or  tribunal  or  Indian  Governmental Instrumentality,  if  the  Change  in  Law  is  on account of a change in interpretation of Law.

13.4.2 The payment for Changes in Law shall be through supplementary  bill  as  mentioned  in  Article  11.8. However, in case of any change in Tariff  by reason of Change in Law, as determined in accordance with this Agreement,  the  Monthly  Invoice  to  be  raised  by  the Seller  after  such  change  in  Tariff  shall  appropriately reflect the changed Tariff.”

6. It will be seen that Article 13.4.1 makes it clear that adjustment in

monthly tariff payment on account of change in law shall be effected

from the date of the change in law [see sub-clause (i) of clause 4.1], in

case  the  change  in  law  happens  to  be  by  way  of  adoption,

promulgation,  amendment,  re-enactment  or  repeal  of  the  law  or

change in law.  As opposed to this, if the change in law is on account of

a change in interpretation of law by a judgment of a Court or Tribunal

11

or governmental instrumentality, the case would fall under sub-clause

(ii) of clause 4.1, in which case, the monthly tariff  payment shall be

effected from the date  of  the said  order/judgment  of  the competent

authority/Tribunal  or  the  governmental  instrumentality.  What  is

important to notice is that Article 13.4.1 is subject to Article 13.2 of the

PPAs.

7. Article  13.2  is  an  in-built  restitutionary  principle  which

compensates the party affected by such change in law and which must

restore, through monthly tariff payments, the affected party to the same

economic position as if  such change in law has not  occurred.  This

would mean that by this clause a fiction is created, and the party has to

be put in the same economic position is if such change in law has not

occurred,  i.e.,  the  party  must  be  given  the  benefit  of  restitution  as

understood in civil law. Article 13.2, however, goes on to divide such

restitution  into  two  separate  periods.  The  first  period  is  the

“construction period” in which increase/decrease of capital cost of the

project in the tariff is to be governed by a certain formula. However, the

seller  has  to  provide  to  the  procurer  documentary  proof  of  such

increase/decrease in capital cost for establishing the impact of such

12

change in law and in the case of dispute as to the same, a dispute

resolution mechanism as per Article 17 of the PPA is to be resorted to.

It is also made clear that compensation is only payable to either party

only  with  effect  from the date on which the total  increase/decrease

exceeds the amount stated therein.

8. So far as the “operation period” is concerned, compensation for

any  increase/decrease  in  revenues  or  costs  to  the  seller  is  to  be

determined  and  effected  from  such  date  as  is  decided  by  the

appropriate  Commission.  Here  again,  this  compensation  is  only

payable for increase/decrease in revenue or cost to the seller if it is in

excess  of  an  amount  equivalent  to  1%  of  the  Letter  of  Credit  in

aggregate for a contract year. What is clear, therefore, from a reading

of Article 13.2, is that restitutionary principles apply in case a certain

threshold limit is crossed in both sub-clauses (a) and (b). There is no

dispute that the present case is covered by sub-clause (b) and that the

aforesaid threshold has been crossed. The mechanism for claiming a

change in law is then set out by Article 13.3 of the PPA.

9. In Civil Appeal No. 6190 of 2018, the PPA contains Article 13.4 as

follows:

13

“13.4 Tariff Adjustment Payment on account of Change in Law 13.4.1 Subject to Article 13.2, the adjustment in Monthly Tariff Payment shall be effective from:

(a) the  date  of  adoption,  promulgation, amendment, re-enactment or repeal of the Law or Change in Law; or (b) the  date  of  order/judgment  of  the Competent  Court  or  tribunal  or  Indian Governmental Instrumentality, if the Change in Law is on account of a change in interpretation of Law. (c) the  date  of  impact  resulting  from  the occurrence of Article 13.1.1.

13.4.2 The payment for Changes in Law shall be through Supplementary  Bill  as  mentioned  in  Article  11.8. However, in case of any change in Tariff  by reason of Change in Law, as determined in accordance with this Agreement,  the  Monthly  Invoice  to  be  raised  by  the Seller  after  such  change  in  Tariff  shall  appropriately reflect the changed Tariff.”

It will be seen that sub-clause (c) does not occur in the PPA in Civil

Appeal No.5865 of 2018. As we have held that the present case is

governed by  sub-clause  (i)  of  Article  13.4.1,  it  is  obvious  that  sub-

clauses (b) and (c) have no application to the facts of the present case.

10. A reading of Article 13 as a whole, therefore, leads to the position

that  subject  to  restitutionary principles contained in  Article  13.2,  the

adjustment in monthly tariff payment, in the facts of the present case,

has to be from the date of the withdrawal of exemption which was done

14

by  administrative  orders  dated  06.04.2015  and  16.02.2016.  The

present  case,  therefore,  falls  within  Article  13.4.1(i).  This  being  the

case, it is clear that the adjustment in monthly tariff payment has to be

effected from the date on which the exemptions given were withdrawn.

This being the case, monthly invoices to be raised by the seller after

such change in tariff are to appropriately reflect the changed tariff. On

the facts of  the present  case,  it  is  clear  that  the respondents were

entitled to adjustment in their monthly tariff payment from the date on

which  the  exemption  notifications  became  effective.  This  being  the

case, the restitutionary principle contained in Article 13.2 would kick in

for the simple reason that it is only after the order dated 04.05.2017

that the CERC held that the respondents were entitled to claim added

costs on account of change in law w.e.f. 01.04.2015. This being the

case,  it  would  be  fallacious  to  say  that  the  respondents  would  be

claiming this restitutionary amount on some general principle of equity

outside the PPA. Since it is clear that this amount of carrying cost is

only relatable to Article 13 of the PPA, we find no reason to interfere

with the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal.

15

11. We now come to some of the judgments cited by learned counsel

on behalf of both sides. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of

Madhya  Pradesh  and  Ors.,  (2003)  8  SCC  648  [“South  Eastern

Coalfields”], this Court held that interest is payable in equity in certain

circumstances and finally concluded:

“24. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the absence of there being a prohibition either in law or in the contract entered into between the two parties, there is no reason why  the  Coalfields  should  not  be  compensated  by payment  of  interest  for  the  period  for  which  the consumers/purchasers  did  not  pay  the  amount  of enhanced royalty which is a constituent part of the price of the mineral for the period for which it remained unpaid. The justification for award of interest stands fortified by the  weighty  factor  that  the  Coalfields  themselves  are obliged to pay interest to the State on such amount. It will  be  a  travesty  of  justice  to  hold  that  though  the Coalfields must pay the amount of interest to the State but  the  consumers/purchasers  in  whose  hands  the money was actually withheld be exonerated from liability to pay the interest.”

What was argued by Shri Giri was that this judgment cannot be applied

to fact situations that arise under the PPA in view of Article 18.17 of the

PPA which clearly states that the liability of the seller and the procurer

shall be limited to that explicitly provided in this agreement and that, in

no  event,  shall  either  procurer  or  seller  claim  any  indirect  or

consequential losses or damages. Since we have found that the claim

16

for carrying costs is under Article 13 of the PPAs, this judgment would

have no application to the facts of the present case.

12. Shri  Giri  also  relied  upon  National  Thermal  Power

Corporation Ltd. (supra), in which, South Eastern Coalfields (supra)

was distinguished in the following manner:

“25. In this connection, it is material to note that the claim in South  Eastern  Coalfields [(2003)  8  SCC  648]  was essentially  covered  under  Section  61  of  the  Sale  of Goods Act, 1930, and the interest by way of damages was payable  as per  this  statutory  provision itself.  The liability  had  been  crystallised  and  the  interest  had become  payable  because  of  the  failure  to  pay  the amount as per the liability. Besides, there was nothing in the agreement between the parties to the contrary on the issue of grant of interest. In the present matter, we have the  second  proviso  to  Regulation  79(2)  of  the  1999 Regulations which permitted the generating company to continue to charge the existing tariff for such period as may be specified in the notification by the Commission, and  the  notifications  permitted  continuation  of  the existing tariff  as on 31-3-2001, until  the final tariff  was determined.  There  was  no  provision  for  payment  of interest therein. The very fact that interest came to be provided  subsequently  by  a  notification  under  the Regulations  of  2004  is  also  indicative  of  a  contrary situation in the present matter viz. that interest was not payable earlier.”

13. Article 13 of the PPAs provides for payment of carrying costs,

as held by us above. This judgment also turned on the interpretation of

Regulation  79(2)  of  the  Central  Electricity  Regulatory  Commission 17

(Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999, and therefore, also has no

manner of application to the facts of the present case.

14. In  Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India

and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 161, this Court was concerned with whether a

successful party in a litigation should not be compensated by way of

restitution  for  deprivation  of  its  legitimate  dues.  While  dealing  with

restitutionary  principles  as  applicable  in  the  context  of  environment

pollution, this Court laid down certain principles in paragraph 197. This

judgment,  again,  has  no  manner  of  application  to  the  facts  of  the

present case which are confined to the interpretation of Article 13 of the

PPAs.

15. The next judgment relied upon by Shri Giri was All India Power

Engineer Federation and Ors. v. Sasan Power Ltd. and Ors., (2017)

1 SCC 487. Paragraph 31 of this judgment was relied upon to state

that  in  context  of  Section 63 of  the Electricity  Act,  the Commission

alone can accept amended tariff that would impact consumer interest,

and therefore, public interest, and waiver of any rights of one of the

parties under the PPA, if it impacts such consumer interest, would have

to pass muster under the Commission which would look into all factors

18

and then pass a reasoned order. We fail to see how this judgment has

any application on the facts of the present case as, in the present case,

we are concerned with the interpretation of Article 13 of the PPAs.

16. Lastly,  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Energy  Watchdog  v.

Central  Electricity  Regulatory  Commission  and  Ors.,  (2017)  14

SCC 80 was also relied upon. In this judgment, three issues were set

out and decided, one of which was concerned with a change in law

provision of a PPA. In holding that change in Indonesian law would not

qualify as a change in law under the guidelines read with the PPAs,

this Court referred to Clause 13.2 as follows:

“57. …… This  being  so,  it  is  clear  that  so  far  as  the procurement of Indian coal is concerned, to the extent that the supply from Coal India and other Indian sources is  cut  down,  the  PPA  read  with  these  documents provides  in  Clause  13.2  that  while  determining  the consequences of change in law, parties shall have due regard to the principle that the purpose of compensating the party affected by such change in law is to restore, through monthly tariff payments, the affected party to the economic  position  as  if  such  change  in  law  has  not occurred……”

There  can  be  no  doubt  from  this  judgment  that  the  restitutionary

principle contained in Clause 13.2 must always be kept in mind even

19

when compensation for increase/decrease in cost is determined by the

CERC.

17. In  this  view  of  the  matter,  the  appeals  are  accordingly

dismissed.  

……………………J.                                                                                 (R.F. Nariman)

……………………J. New Delhi                (Navin Sinha) February 25, 2019

20

ITEM NO.1501               COURT NO.6               SECTION XVII

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No. 5865/2018

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN  NIGAM LTD.(UHBVNL) & ANR.   Appellant(s)

VERSUS ADANI POWER LTD. & ORS.                            Respondent(s)

WITH  C.A. No. 6190/2018  

Date : 25-02-2019  These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv. Mr. Nishant, Adv.

Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Mr. Anand Ganeshan, Adv. Ms. Puja Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. S. Narsimha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Poonam Verma, Adv. Mr. Abiha Zaidi, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv. Mr. Malav Deliwala, Adv. Ms. Aditi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

                    Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice  R.  F.  Nariman  pronounced  the

judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(NIDHI AHUJA)                   (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER (SH)              ASSISTANT  REGISTRAR

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]

21