Dismissed

Apl No 156 of 2022 of M/s.Grace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Tangedco & Ors.

APTEL15 Feb 2024APL No 156 of 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant challenged the dismissal of its review petition and the rejection of its prayer for waiver/return of court fee. The Tribunal held that since the review sought modification of liability and not clerical correction, the 10% fee rule applied. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for waiver of court fee and return of court fee was dismissed; the appeal was dismissed.

Apl No 156 of 2022 of M/s.Grace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd… — Service and Employment | APTEL (2024)

¶1

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

APPEAL No. 156 of 2022

¶3

Dated : 15^th February, 2024

¶4

Present: Honble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Honble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member

¶5

In the matter of:

¶6

APPEAL No. 156 of 2022

¶7

M/s.Grace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Mr. A. L. Shah A-5, Industrial Estate Thattanchavady Pondicherry – 605 009 Email : [email protected] … Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

TANGEDCO Rep by its Chairman cum Managing Director No. 144, Annasalai Chennai- 600 002. Email : [email protected]

¶10

The Director (Finance) TANGEDCO No 144, Annasalai Chennai-600 002. Email : [email protected]

¶11

The Chief Engineer (NCES) TANGEDCO No 144, Annasalai

¶12

________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.156 of 2022 Page_ 1 of 7

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

Chennai-600 002. Email : [email protected]

¶15

The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle Tirunelveli- 627011. Email : [email protected]

¶16

The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO Theni Electricity Distribution Circle Theni- 625531. Email : [email protected]

¶17

The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle Dindigul-624306. Email : [email protected]

¶18

Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission 4th floor, SIDCO Corporate Office Building Thiru. Vi. Ka Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai- 600 032 Email : [email protected] …Respondents

¶19

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : K. Ravi, Sr. Adv. Anand K. Ganesan R Murugan Swapna Seshadri for App. 1 Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Anusha Nagarajan for Res. 1 Anusha Nagarajan for Res. 2 Anusha Nagarajan for Res. 3 Anusha Nagarajan for Res. 4

¶20

________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.156 of 2022 Page_ 2 of 7

¶21

Page 2 of 7

¶22

Anusha Nagarajan for Res. 5

¶23

Anusha Nagarajan for Res. 6

¶24

JUDGEMENT

¶25

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶26

1. In this appeal, the Appellant has assailed the order dated 19^th January, 2022 of the Learned Commission whereby, the Review Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed and its application containing prayer for waiver of court fee affixed on the Review Petition was also dismissed.

¶27

2. In this appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of its application for waiver of court fee affixed on the Review Petition.

¶28

3. The Appellant had filed a Petition bearing number D.R.P. No. 23 of 2020 before the Commission seeking directions to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.80,81,31,929/- plus Rs.14,80,198.65/- being the balance amount due to it for the period from 16-03-2017 to 07-12-2020 for power supplied by it to the Respondents from its wind generation units. Vide order dated 6^th July, 2021, the Commission has allowed the claim of the Appellant except to the extent of Rs.4,44,25,933/-, and the Appellant was held not entitled to the said

¶29

________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.156 of 2022 Page_ 3 of 7

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

amount. The Appellant filed a Review Petition bearing No. 3 of 2021 before the Commission against the said portion of the impugned order rejecting its claim to the tune of Rs.4,44,25,933/-. The Review Petition was dismissed by the Commission vide order dated 19^th January, 2022. While dismissing the Review Petition, the Commission also rejected the prayer of the Appellant for waiver of court fee.

¶32

4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as material on record.

¶33

5. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that in terms of Regulation number 4(8)(i) of TNERC Fees and Fines Regulations 2004 as amended vide notification dated 4^th June, 2014, no court fee was payable by the Appellant on the Review Petition but on insistence of the Registry of the Commission, it was compelled to pay a sum of Rs.8,09,613/- i.e. 10% of the court fee paid by it on DRP. Therefore, it was argued on behalf of the Appellant that the Commission has erred in not passing a direction for the return of the said court fee to the Appellant.

¶34

6. We are unable to countenance with the submission made on

¶35

behalf of the Appellant in this regard.

¶36

________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.156 of 2022 Page_ 4 of 7

¶37

Page 4 of 7

¶38

7. The relevant Regulation number 4.8 of TNERC Fees and Fines

¶39

Regulations 2004 as amended vide notification dated 4^th June, 2014 is

¶40

reproduced hereunder :-

¶41

“For review or correction	Fees for Review
of any order of the Commission on account of typographical or clerical error or mistake NIL	(i) for correction of any order of the Commission on account of typographical or clerical error or mistake	NIL
	(ii) Review petition filed by an individual against the orders of the Commission in a Miscellaneous Petition	Rs.200/-
	(iii) Review Petition filed by any organisation registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (C.A. 1 of 1956) or any firm or Corporate Body other than the entities covered by sub-item (iv) against the orders in a Miscellaneous Petition	Rs.3000/-
	(iv) Review Petition Filed by registered association of consumers or generators against the orders in a miscellaneous Petition	Rs.20000/-
	(v) Review Petition filed against the orders in a Dispute Redressal petition (DRP)	10% of the fees paid in the original DRP
	No change”

¶42

________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.156 of 2022 Page_ 5 of 7

¶43

Page 5 of 7

¶44

8. Perusal of the said Regulation would reveal that no court fees is payable under Regulation 4(8)(i) when a petition is filed for correction of any order of the Commission on account of typographical or clerical error or mistake. Regulation 4(8)(v) envisages payment of court fee @10% of the fee paid on the original DRP when the Review Petition is filed against the order passed in the DRP.

¶45

9. In the instant case, admittedly, the Appellant had filed the Petition No. 3 of 2021 seeking review of the order dated 6^th July, 2021 passed by the Commission in DRP No. 23 of 2020. It is not the case of the Appellant itself that by way of the said Review Petition No. 3 of 2021, it has sought correction of the order of the Commission on account of any typographical or clerical error or mistake. To clarify, we reproduce here the prayer made by the Appellant in Review Petition 3 of 2021.

¶46

“This petition in R.P. No.3 of 2021 in D.R.P. No.23 of 2020 has been filed to review/modify the observation in para 6.1 of the order dated 06.07.2021 in D.R.P.No. 23 of 2020 that the petitioner has not denied their liability in respect of the demand for Rs.4,44,25,923/-, and instead may consider adding that the question regarding the petitioner’s liability for the sum of Rs.4,44,25,923/- may be left open. However, without prejudice to the petitioner’s contentions, the Respondents, for the present, may be given liberty to withhold such sum of Rs.4,44,25,923/- and may be directed to pay the balance as claimed in the Petition within the time already specified in the order.”

¶47

________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.156 of 2022 Page_ 6 of 7

¶48

Page 6 of 7

¶49

10. It is thus manifest that the Appellant has not sought correction of any typographical or clerical error or mistake in the order dated 6^th July, 2021 but had sought review/modification of the said order on the ground mentioned in the Review Petition. Therefore, the court fee payable on the Review Petition has been rightly computed as 10% of the court fee paid by the Appellant on the original DRP in terms of Regulation 4(8)(v) of the above Regulations.

¶50

11. Hence, we do not find any legal flaw in the order of the Commission on this aspect. The Appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶51

Pronounced in the open court on this 15^th day of February, 2024.

¶52

(Virender Bhat) Judicial Member

¶53

(Sandesh Kumar Sharma) Technical Member (Electricity)

¶54

√ REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE

¶55

¶56

________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.156 of 2022 Page_ 7 of 7

¶57

Page 7 of 7

Apl No 156 of 2022 of M/s.Grace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Tangedco & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apl No 156 of 2022 of M/s.Grace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Tangedco & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apl No. 276 of 2015, Apl NO.320 of 2018, Apl NO.114 of 2020 & Ia Nos. 635 of 2020& 654 of 2023, Apl No. 73 of 2021 & Ia of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No. 210 of 2019 & Ia Nos. 2034 and 1241 of 2023, apl No. 211 of 2019 & Ia Nos. 2035 and 1240 of 2023, apl No. 212 of of Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Anr. Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No 297 of 2019 of Jindal India Thermal Power Limited Versus Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl_No 41 of 2019 of RattanIndia Power Limited Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Apl Nos 308 of 2019 & 118 Of 2023 of Gujarat Gas Limited Versus Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board

Apl No 279 of 2022 & 425 of 2022 of Waaneep Solar Private Limited Versus Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No 337 of 2023 & Ia No 531 of 2023 of M/S Tata Steel Ltd. Versus Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (Oerc) & Anr.

Apl No 403 of 2022 of Bharat Feeds and Extractions Limited Versus Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited& Anr.

Apl No 297 of 2019 of Jindal India Thermal Power Limited Versus Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl_No 41 of 2019 of RattanIndia Power Limited Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Apl No 225 of 2016 of Shree Cement Limited Versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Apl No 155 of 2022 of M/s. Grace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tangedco & Ors.

Apl No 279 of 2022 & 425 of 2022 of Waaneep Solar Private Limited Versus Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No 403 of 2022 of Bharat Feeds and Extractions Limited Versus Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited& Anr.