Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and the Hon’ble Supreme Court right from W.P.No.7395/2003 to Review Petition in C.A.No.6754 of 2013 dismissed on 04-102016. In fact AP Transco and others filed a further Curative Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6754/2013, which was straightaway dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07-08-2018 much later to the filing of the present petition showing that the respondents did not allow the fixation of tariff to become final till even after this petition, excluding any scope for running of time against the claims. Even thereafter, in spite of demands to pay Rs.3.48 per unit for the power supplied during 21-01-2004 to 31-03-2004 with interest thereon, the respondents did not respond, leading to this petition. Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 excludes time taken in legal proceedings in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application. Similarly, even if the proceedings were before a court without jurisdiction, exclusion of such time taken for the proceedings bona fide is mandated to be excluded by Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Only when the tariff fixed for supply of power during the relevant period had become final, the time again begins to run after the time expired between the date of accrual of the cause of action, the date of demand and the date of commencement of the litigation by way of Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court. Another factor to be taken into account must be the payments made towards such energy supplied as per the various interim or final orders in between and the quantum of energy supplied was never in dispute. The payments so made or the correspondence so exchanged in between may also have the effect of an acknowledgment in writing under Section 18 of the Limitation Act,
