8 , 2014 (1 )BomCR101 , 2013 ELR(SC )1307 , 2013 INSC 637 , JT2013 (13 )SC 456 , 2014 (1 )RCR(Civil)743 , 2014 (1 )RCR(Rent)743 , 2013 (11 )SCALE661 , (2014 )1 SCC371 , [2013 ]9 SCR805 , (2014 )2 WBLR(SC )852 , ,MANU/SC/0954/2013
T.S. Thakur#Vikramajit Sen#26SC3020Judgment/OrderAD#AIR#AJR#ALJ#BomCR#ELR#INSC#JT#MANU#RCR (Civil)#RCR (Rent)#SCALE#SCC#SCR#WBLRT.S. Thakur,Power and Energy#Power and EnergySUPREME COURT OF INDIA2014-2-137681,88535,37578,37579,37580,37581,37582,88519,88520,88521,88522,88523,88524,88525,88526,88527,88528,88529,88530,88531,88532,88533,88534,88536,88537,88538,88539,88540,88541,88542,88543,88544,88545,88546,88547,88548,88549,88552,88501,27671,37555,37627,37613 -->
MANU/SC/0954/2013
True Court CopyTM EnglishELR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 4117 of 2006 and 5361-5362 of 2007
Decided On: 18.09.2013
Appellants: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Respondent: N.T.P.C. Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
T.S. Thakur and Vikramajit Sen JUDGMENT
T.S. Thakur, J.
1. This appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 calls in question the correctness of a judgment and Order dated 7th July, 2006 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity whereby the Tribunal has while partially modifying the Order passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission ('CERC' for short) dismissed Appeal No. 36 of 2006 filed by the Appellant.
2. The CERC had by the Order impugned before the Tribunal allowed Petition No. 139 of 2004 filed by the Respondent-Corporation and permitted capitalisation of Rs. 4.521 crores over the approved cost for the completion of Feroz Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Station Stage-I for the period 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2004. While doing so the CERC had in Para 37 of its Order held Respondent No. 1 entitled to return on equity and interest on loan on the said amount payable along with the tariff for the period 2004-2009. What is significant is that both the CERC and the Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention urged on behalf of the Appellant-Corporation that the additional capital expenditure incurred by the Respondent-Corporation could not be taken into consideration for tariff fixation without the same having been approved by the Central Electricity Authority ("CEA" for short) as required under Regulation 2.5 of the CERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2001. The primary question that therefore falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the CERC and the Tribunal have correctly interpreted Regulation 2.5 of the said Regulations while permitting capitalisation of the additional expenditure for purposes of determining the tariff. That question arises in the following factual backdrop:
3. Feroz Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Station Stage-I was taken over by the Respondent-National Thermal Power Corporation from the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board on 13th February, 1992. The Central Government had approved the takeover cost of Rs. 925 crores in terms of a communication dated 2nd May, 1993 issued by the Ministry of Power. By a subsequent letter dated 5th August, 1996 the CE........