Disposed

Appeal No.218 of 2024 of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Damodar Velley Corporation & Anr.

APTEL16 Jul 2025APPEAL No.218 OF 2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant filed appeal against CERC order regarding electricity dues between DVC and JUVNL. Parties had mutually settled dues up to September 2015, reserving TISCO differential, free hydel power, and incentive pending Supreme Court outcome.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the appeal without expressing any opinion; parties directed to follow the outcome of the pending Supreme Court Special Leave Petition regarding TISCO differential, free hydel power, and in

Appeal No.218 of 2024 of Jharkhand Urja… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | APTEL (2025)

¶1

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

APPEAL No.218 OF 2024

¶3

Dated: 16.07.2025

¶4

Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member

¶5

In the matter of:

¶6

Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now known as Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited in Short “JUVNL”) Engineering Building HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004 … Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Damodar Velley Corporation DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata – 700054

¶9

2. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission 3rd & 4th Floor, Chanderlok Building 36, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001 … Respondents

¶10

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : Anup Kumar Kumar Anurag Singh Zain A Khan Ekta Bharati Dev Aaryan Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Shri Venkatesh Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma Bharath Gangadharan Akash Lamba Nihal Bhardwaj

¶11

___________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.218 of 2024 Page 1 of 9_

¶12

Page 1 of 9

¶13

Siddharth Nigotia
Shivam Kumar
Kartikay Trivedi
Mohit Gupta
Manu Tiwari
Aashwyn Singh
Harsh Vardhan
Suhael Buttan
Priya Dhankar
Anant Singh
Vineet Kumar
Nikunj Bhatnagar
Kunal Veer Chopra
Vedant Choudhary for Res. 1

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶16

1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (in short “JUVNL”), a distribution licensee in the State of Jharkhand has filed this appeal against the order dated 29.01.2015 passed by 2^nd respondent Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereafter referred to as “the Commission”) in petition no.64/MP/2013 which had been filed by the 1^st respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (in short “DVC”).

¶17

2. In the petition filed before the Commission, the DVC had sought following reliefs: -

¶18

“ (a) Adjudicate the disputes between DVC and the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (“JSEB”), the

¶19

predecessor of the Appellant.

¶20

___________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.218 of 2024 Page 2 of 9_

¶21

Page 2 of 9

¶22

(b) Issue directive to JSEB for liquidation of outstanding dues of which principal dues is (Rs. 3621.84 Crores and delayed payment surcharge is Rs. 2172.87 Crores), as claimed by DVC till the end of February 2013, immediately so that the financial health of DVC improves.

¶23

(c) Issue directives to JSEB to restrain from claiming Line Loss prior to the year of claim preferred to DVC.

¶24

(d) Issue directives to JSEB to restrain from claiming Free Hydel Power prior to the year 2006-07, subject to acceptance by the Commission, since for the past period up to 2006-07 DVC already allowed a 15% rebate to JSEB on its energy charge and demand charge.

¶25

(e) Issue directives to DVC & JSEB as the Commission considers most appropriate in respect of other disputed issues, raised by JSEB viz. TISCO Differential, Rebate on Tariff, Delay Payment Surcharge, Incentive, Settlement of Differential Tariff.

¶26

___________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.218 of 2024 Page 3 of 9_

¶27

Page 3 of 9

¶28

(f) To kindly settle the disputes and resolve the long pending issues once for all so that tariff can be regularized in the operating area of DVC. ”

¶29

3. The petition has been disposed off by the Commission vide impugned order dated 29.01.2015, inter alia, holding that: -

¶30

“ (a) DVC is entitled to immediately recover the total undisputed amount of Rs. 4213.745 crore from JSEB.

¶31

(b) DVC shall be provisionally paid the un-reconciled amount of Rs. 578.72 crore for the period July, 2013 to January, 2014 which shall be finally adjusted after reconciliation.

¶32

(c) The amounts withheld by JSEB on account of TISCO differential and 12% free power shall be released in favour of DVC.

¶33

d) Rebate on tariff and Delayed Payment Surcharge ("DPS") shall be regulated in accordance with Ld. CERC's regulations on these two aspects. Accordingly, 15% rebate shall not be applicable on the tariff determined by Ld. CERC. Since, however, DPS

¶34

amount has already been reconciled between the

¶35

Appeal No.218 of 2024

¶36

Page 4 of 9

¶37

parties in the meeting held on 10.1.2014, the issue need not be reopened.

¶38

(e) JSEB is not entitled to incentive under the Securitization Scheme on accounts various defaults of omission and commission committed.

¶39

(f) Differential tariff for the period April, 2006 to April, 2010 shall await the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals pending before it.

¶40

(g) DVC shall pay JSEB an amount of Rs. 53.33 crore for

¶41

line losses to the period from September, 2001 to June 2013.

¶42

(h) The amount found due or refundable in terms of the Impugned Order shall be paid by JSEB latest by 31.03.2015, failing which DVC shall recover the entire amount in accordance with the Securitization Scheme along with interest @ 15% per annum on the total amount from 01.04.2015 till the date of actual realization. ”

¶43

4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant JUVNL (successor

¶44

of Jharkhand State Electricity Board) has filed the instant appeal.

¶45

Appeal No.218 of 2024 Page 5 of 9

¶46

Page 5 of 9

¶47

5. Initially, the appeal was rejected by this Tribunal vide order dated 29.09.2015 on account of delay of 91 days in refiling the appeal. However, JUVNL assailed the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.364 of 2016 which was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2014 thereby condoning the delay of 91 days in refiling the appeal and setting aside the order dated 29.09.2015 of this Tribunal.

¶48

6. Admittedly, in the meanwhile, the parties had entered into a reconciliation settlement on 13.01.2016. The parties had mutually arrived at a final figure of Rs.4,770/- cores (principal amount of Rs.3,645.87 crores along with delayed payment surcharge @40% i.e. Rs.1,003.91 crores) payable by JUVNL to DVC up to September, 2015. This was a mutually agreed upon onetime settlement between the parties and the total settlement amount was to be paid to DVC before 31.03.2016. The bifurcation of the reconciliation

¶49

amount is reflected in the following table which has been extracted by the appellant itself in its brief note submitted during the course of arguments: -

¶50

“

¶51

S. No.	Particulars	Amount payable (Cr.)
1.	Principal Energy Dues	Rs. 3645.87
2.	DPS (40% amount payable) of	Rs. 1003.91
	Rs. 2509.98 Cr.

¶52

___________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.218 of 2024 Page 6 of 9_

¶53

Page 6 of 9

¶54

3.	Billing difference/Penal demand charge	Rs. 25.83
4.	Difference of rate on account of	Rs. 94.00
	STOA power including DPS
	Total	Rs. 4769.61 Cr.
	Say (Roundup)	Rs. 4770.00 Cr. ”

¶55

7. The contention of the appellant is that the principal amount of Rs.3,645.87 crores settled between the parties during the reconciliation settlement on 13.01.2016 excluded the sum towards line loss, TISCO differential and incentive, and therefore, the appellant is claiming the amounts under these three heads from the respondent DVC in this appeal. It is contended that the DVC had made payments towards free hydel power, TISCO differential and incentive till September, 2015, and therefore, it should continue paying the amounts under these heads de hors the aforesaid settlement also.

¶56

8. It is the case of the appellant also, as reflected from the brief note filed

¶57

on its behalf, that the settlement arrived at between the parties on 13.01.2016

¶58

was full and final with regards to the outstanding dues payable to DVC as on 30.09.2015.

¶59

___________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.218 of 2024 Page 7 of 9_

¶60

Page 7 of 9

¶61

9. A copy of the minutes of meeting between the parties held on 13.01.2016 for reconciliation and final settlement of outstanding dues of DVC has been filed by the appellant along with IA No.195/2015. We have perused these minutes. With regards to TISCO differential, free hydel power and incentive it has been recorded in these minutes as under: -

¶62

“ ii) Tisco Differential, Free Hydal Power and

¶63

incentive on bond :- DVC and JUVNL/JBVNL officials mutually settled regarding TISCO Diff., free Hydel, Incentive of outstanding dues upto 30^th Sep 2015. In view of pending SLP in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of TISCO Diff., free Hydel, Incentive, it was mutually agreed by both the parties to follow the outcome of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from October 2015 on wards. ”

¶64

10. Once the parties have mutually agreed that the outstanding dues regarding TISCO differential, free hydel power and incentive with effect from October, 2015 onwards would be subject to the outcome of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court we feel of the opinion that no orders are called for in this regard from this Tribunal in this appeal.

¶65

___________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.218 of 2024 Page 8 of 9_

¶66

Page 8 of 9

¶67

11. Accordingly, we hereby dispose off the instant appeal without expressing

¶68

any opinion upon the rival contentions of the parties and leaving the parties to follow the outcome of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regards to TISCO differential, free hydel power and incentive with effect from October,

¶69

2015 onwards.

¶70

Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th day of July, 2025.

¶71

(Virender Bhat) Judicial Member

¶72

(Sandesh Kumar Sharma) Technical Member (Electricity)

¶73

✓

¶74

REPORTABLE / NON REPORTABLE

¶75

¶76

Appeal No.218 of 2024 Page 9 of 9

¶77

Page 9 of 9

Appeal No.218 of 2024 of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Damodar Velley Corporation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appeal No.218 of 2024 of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Damodar Velley Corporation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Appeal No. 148 of 2023 of M/s. Korba Power Limited versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 66 of 2017 of Tangedco versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 226 of 2020 & Appeal No. 146 of 2021 of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 244 of 2017, Appeal No. 293 of 2018, Appeal No. 341 of 2019 & Appeal No. 49 of 2020 of M/s. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd. versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 92 of 2017 of Nlc India Limited versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.69 of 2018, Appeal No.70 of 2018, Appeal No.71 of 2018 & Appeal No.72 of 2018 of Bses Rajdhani Power Limited versus Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission

Appeal No. 204 of 2016 of Aravali Power Company Private Limited versus Haryana Power Purchase Center (Hppc) & Ors.

Appeal No. 47 of 2019 of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (Tangedco) versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Appeal No. 66 of 2017 of Tangedco versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 148 of 2023 of M/s. Korba Power Limited versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.75 of 2023 of M/s. Sneha Kinetic Power Projects Private Limited versus Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Appeal No. 92 of 2017 of Nlc India Limited versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.69 of 2018, Appeal No.70 of 2018, Appeal No.71 of 2018 & Appeal No.72 of 2018 of Bses Rajdhani Power Limited versus Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission

Appeal No. 204 of 2016 of Aravali Power Company Private Limited versus Haryana Power Purchase Center (Hppc) & Ors.