tt"* y,

Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited %@#

-.,..
..,,

Regd. Off :SURYACHAKRA HOUSE, Plot No. 304-L-Ill, Road No. 78, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad-500 096.CIN:L40103TG1995PLC019554 Ph : +91-40-3082 3000,2355 0597 I 9 8
Fax :040 - 2354 1339, E-mail :admin@suryachakra.com website :www.suryachakra.in

Dt. 16thJanuary, 2017

Ref: SPCL/ BSE/ 2017

To
The General Manager
Dept. of Corporate Services
Bombay Stock Exchange Limited
Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers
Dalal Street, Mumbai - 400 001.
Dear Sir,

Sub: Intimation of our Request to keep JERC Order dt.13.01.2017 in

Petition 174/2015 in Abeyance / Reissue Reg.

Ref: Scrip Code: 532874

With reference to the above, please find attached copies of Intimation
regarding our Request to keep Order dt.13.01.2017 in Petition 174/2015
in Abeyance / Reissue and order passed by JERC, Gurgaon in Petition
No.174/2015 dt.13.01.2017.
The Company is taking appropriate steps for staying the order and
appeals are being filed shortly.
This is for your information and records.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
for Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited

&

Authorised Signatory

=mi :200a
Is0 14001 :2004

Workspace Webmail :: Print

1 of 2

https://email05.godaddy.com/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=6835|INB...

Print | Close Window

Subject: Request to keep Order dt:13/01/2017 in Petition 174/2015 in Abeyance / Reissue
From: vijaykumar@suryachakra.com
Date: Mon, Jan 16, 2017 2:21 pm
To: "Keerti Tewari" <secretaryjerc@gmail.com>
"rinku gautam" <directorfl.jerc@gmail.com>, kunal.singhal@in.pwc.com, "SE A&N"
Cc: <seelectricity@yahoo.co.in>, "Rohit N" <rohit@veritaslegis.com>, ramamurthyvsb@velichetyandco.in,
seed@and.nic.in, vlnrao@suryachakra.com
Attach: Appeal No.11 of 2012.pdf
jud23 9.07.2010.pdf

Without Prejudice

Madam,
We were shell shocked to go through the contents of the JERC Order
dt:13/01/2017 in Petition 174/2015 uploaded on your website on
14/01/2017 evening. On in a initial reading of the Order, we observed
that Interest on Late Payment to IPP related to Deemed
Generation/others was not considered as needed/pleaded as per
provisions of PPA and despite a clear judgements from Hon'ble APTEL &
Hon'ble Supreme Court Constitution Bench in this regard which was
found to be totally ignored. Actually these Judgements from Hon'ble
APTEL / Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Constitution Bench were
discussed & explained to your Consultants during our meetings in your
good office in December 2016. We are herewith attaching these copies
of Judgement for your kind perusal for rectifying the Order
dt:13/01/2017 issued by yourself in Petition 174/2017 immediately
before any unimaginable possible damage happens
Financially/Technically/Collaterally to the IPP.
There were also many other aspects which were completely ignored in
finalising the Order dt:13/01/2017 despite they were exhaustively
submitted & clarified to Hon'ble JERC team & their valuable consultants
(PWC) all the time. The JERC Order also does not contain information
about the claims in the written various submissions made by ED A&N
Admin in this Petition matter like amounts claimed by the
Administration is only Rs 4.48 Crores from the IPP excluding deemed
generation and interest on delayed payment. After considering the
deemed generation and interest on delayed payment the Honble
commission has decided Rs 9.67 Crores as payable by the
Company/IPP. It is not understood how there could be such a variation
arise, even after considering the above components. Also, there is no

1/16/2017 3:24 PM

Workspace Webmail :: Print

2 of 2

https://email05.godaddy.com/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=6835|INB...

mention about various issues raised by ED A&N Admin in appeals at

APTEL, in civil appeals CA no:1652/2015 & also 3764/2016 at Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Based on these appeals only, Hon'ble Supreme Court
has given Order to JERC to compute the final order without going into
earlier settled issues. Despite, JERC having complete
information/copies with them about all the above issues, they were
ignored while preparing the Order. We found lot of deficiencies in the
Order affecting our claim and we will be submitting all these
deficiencies separately for your consideration.
Further, it is seen from the Order that there was no mention of the
consultants M/s.Price WaterHouse Coopers(PWC) in the Order, though
it was well known fact that they been appointed for computation and
the Order being issued on basis of the reports submitted by them only.
The contents of the Order shows that all the computations have been
done by the JERC only. Not mentioning the consultants in the Order
seems to be not in line with agreed business practice.
Now, hoping and expecting that your good office would take immediate
action to keeping the Order dt:13/01/2017 in Abeyance which is found
to be wrong in arriving at the conclusion therein. We still feel, there
was no attention at all was given to all the petitions / directions
conspired in this case at Hon'ble APTEL / Hon'ble Supreme Court before
arriving the Conclusion in JERC Order dt:13/01/2017.
As such, we pray the Hon'ble Commission to kindly confirm the Order
dt:13/01/2017 is kept in Abeyance as requested by us considering the
facts mentioned above.
This email request is being sent viewing the damage the Order
dt:13/01/2017 can cause to IPP which is sincere in servicing the
Consumers / Islands / Nation with Quality Cheaper power for last 14
years, overcoming many hurdles which are already known to this
Hon'ble Commission.
Best regards,
K Vijay Kumar
Copyright 2003-2017. All rights reserved.

1/16/2017 3:24 PM

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY

(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Appeal No.23/10
Dated : 9th July, 2010
Coram:

Honble Mr. Justice M.Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson

Honble Mr. Rakesh Nath, Technical Member

In the matter of:

Saheli Exports Pvt.Ltd.
T.N.E.B & Anr.
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent

Appellant
Vs

Respondent(s)

: Mr. M.G. Ramachandran

Ms. Swapna Seshadri
Ms. Sneha Venkataramani
: Mr. H.S. Maohammad Rafi
ORDER

The only question that arises for the consideration before this
Tribunal whether the State Commission was correct in rejecting the
claim for the interest made by the Appellant on the ground that the claim
was belated, then it was the TNEB who was solely responsible for the
delay in implementing the order of the Commission , resulting in less
amount being paid to the Appellant. We have heard the learned Counsel
for the parties. It is not disputed that the principal amount which has
been claimed through petition filed in August, 2009 has been ordered to
be paid to the Appellant by the Respondent. In regard to the interest the
Commission rejected the claim merely because the application for
interest was belatedly made. As correctly pointed out by the learned
Counsel for he Appellant that the Commission did not give any finding
with regard to the claim made by the appellant in regard to interest. It is
not disputed that the

claim for interest was made during the pendency of the main application
. As a matter of fact the interim application has been filed in November,
2009 and the Commissions order has been passed on 16th November,
2009 rejecting the claim for the interest. The only reason given by the
Commission for rejecting the claim for interest is that the said claim was
belatedly made. If this ground for rejection is accepted as a valid ground
for rejecting the claim for interest, it will apply to the claim of principal
amount as well also.

Admittedly, the findings referred by the

Commission is that appellant is entitled to the return of the principal

amount, then it may not be proper on the part of the Commission to
hold that the claim for the interest has been belatedly made. It is settled
law that the party is entitled to interest for the said amount. In the light
of the said decision of law, we are of the view that the findings referred to
by the Commission with regard to the rejection of the claim of interest is
liable to be set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the view that appellant is entitled to interest @ 10%
instead of 18% as claimed by the Appellant.
The appeal is allowed.

(Rakesh Nath)
Technical Member

PK/JS

(Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam)

Chairperson

AP P ELLATE TRIB U N AL F OR ELECTRICITY

(Appella t e J u r isdict ion )
Ap p e a l N o . 5/09
D a t e d :1 s t J u ly , 2010

Co ra m :

Ho n ble Mr. J u s tic e M.Ka rp a g a Vin a y a g a m , Ch a irp e rs o n

Ho n ble Ho n ble Mr. Ra k e s h N a th , Te c h n ic a l Me m be r

In t h e m a t t er of:
Ker a la St a t e E lect r icit y Boa r d

Appella n t

Vs
Ker a la St a t e E lect r icit y Regu la t or y Com m ission

Respon den t (s)

Cou n sel for t h e Appella n t

: Mr .M.G.Ra m a ch a n dr a n
Ms. Swa pn a Sesh a dr i

Cou n sel for t h e Respon den t

: Mr . Ra m esh Ba bu M.R.for R-1

Mr . Am a r jit Sin gh Bedi &
Mr .Din esdh Ku m a r for R-2
Mr . Su dh ir Gu pt a a n d
Mr . Ku n a l Ver m a for
Bin a n i Zin c Lt d.

ORD ER

H ea r d t h e lea r ned Cou n sel for t h e pa r t ies. Th ey will be filing

Wr it t en Su bm ission s on or befor e 12.7.2010 a ft er ser vin g copy on t h e
ot her side.

P ost t h e m a t t er for com plia n ce on 13.7.2010

(Ra kesh N a t h )
Tech n ica l Mem ber

PK/JS

(J u st ice M. Ka r pa ga Vin a ya ga m )
Ch a ir per son

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Appeal No.11 of 2012
Dated: 17th April, 2012
Present: Honble Mr. Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson,
Honble Mr.Rakesh Nath, Technical Member

In the Matter of:

1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu electricity Board(Now Tamil
Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,)
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2. The Chief Financial Controller Revenue
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board(Now Tamil
Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,)
7th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.

Nadu

Appellant (s)
Versus
1.

M/s Indian Wind Power

Association
Door No.E, 6th Floor,
Tower 1, Shakthi Towers,
No.766, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.

2.

M/s. G.R. Natarajan & Co.,

1, Jawaharlal Nehru Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

3.

M/s.R.K. Textiles,
292, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Page 1 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

Karur -639 002.

4.

M/s.Asian Fabricx Private

Limited
1D, Pugalur Road, Karur 639 002.

5.

M/s. Allied Textiles,

5, Kamadenu Nagar,
Pugalur Road,
Karur 639 001.

6.

M/s. Sri Ramavilas Weaving

Factory,
SF.No.2262, Pari Nagar,
Chinna Andan Koil Street,
Karur 639 002.

7.

M/s. Aravind A - Traders

52, 5 Cross, Sengunthapuram,
Karur -639 002.

8.

M/s. James Textiles

SF.2197, Sri Muthu Nagar,
Chinnanandan Koil Road,
Karur 639 002.

9.

th

M/s. Aravind Wind Farm

th

52, 5 Cross
Sengunthapuram,
Karur 639 002.
10.

M/s. Arun Wind Mill

2A, 12 Cross, Sengunthapuram,
Vivekananda Nagar,
th

Page 2 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

Karur 639 002.
11.

M/s Adiya Wind Farms

50, 5 Cross, Sengunthapuram,
Karur 639 002.

12.

Tamil Nadu Electricity

th

Regulatory Commission
TIDCO Office Building
No.19 A, Rukmini Lakshipathi Salai
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
..Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant(s):Mr. S. Vallinayagam
Ms. Shweta Mishra
Counsel for the Respondent(s):Mr. Rahul Bajaj
Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan
Mr. Krishna Dev

PER HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON

1. The Chairman and Chief Financial Controller of the Tamil

Electricity

Board(Now

Tamil

Nadu

Generation

and

Distribution Corporation Ltd) are the Appellants.

2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellants as against the
impugned

order

passed

by

the

Tamil

Nadu

State

Commission holding that the Appellants are liable to pay

interest on the delayed payment to the Wind Power
Generators, the Respondents.

Page 3 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

3. The short facts are as follows:a) The Appellant Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the
Principal Purchaser of power generated by the Wind
Energy generators.
b) Respondent -1 is the Wind Power Association.
c) Respondents -2 to 11 are the members of M/s Indian
Wind Power Association, the Respondent-1.
d) Tamil Nadu State Commission is the Respondent-12.
e) The Appellant entered into the agreements with the
Respondents, the Wind Power Generators for sale of the
energy generated by them subject to the terms and
conditions

in

Agreements.

the

respective

Energy

Purchase

The Appellants failed to make prompt

payment within a period of 30 days as agreed to by them

in the energy purchase agreements and even the delayed
payments were made by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
without the payment of any interest.
f) Therefore, the Respondents, Wind Power Generators
filed a petition before the State Commission for directing
the Electricity Board, the Appellant, to make the payment
within a period of 30 days time and to make payment of
interest, for delayed payment.

They also prayed for

punishing the Electricity Board for their failure to comply

with the orders passed by the Commission with reference
to the payment.

Page 4 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

g) The State Commission after hearing the parties though
did not incline to take penal action under section 142 of
the Act,2003 directed Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to pay
interest on delayed settlement of the bills through the
impugned order dated 20th April,2011.
h) Challenging the said order the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board has filed this Appeal.
i) According to the Appellant, there is no clause relating to
the payment of interest on delayed payment either in the
Energy Purchase Agreement entered into between the
parties or in the order passed by the State Commission in
order No.3 of 2006 dated 15.5.2006, which covers the
transaction of the Wind Power Generators with the
Electricity Board and as such the State Commission is not
justified in directing the payment of interest on delayed
payments.
4. Though the Appellant raised several points including the
jurisdiction in the Appeal, ultimately he confined himself to the
point that even assuming that there was a provision for
payment of interest for delayed payment in the State
Commissions order No.1 of 2009 dated 20.3.2009. this would
apply only to the Respondent-6 i.e. M/s Shri Ramavilas
Weaving Factory, Karur, the Wind Power Generator, who was
commissioned after 19.9.2008 and

not to the other Wind

Page 5 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

Power Generators who are Respondents-1 to 5 and 7 to 11,
who were commissioned prior to 19.9.2008.
5. It is the specific stand of the Appellant now taken that the
generators of the Respondents-2 to 5 and 7 to 11 were
commissioned before 19.9.2008 while the tariff order No.1
dated 20.3.2009 specifies that the Wind Energy Generators
commissioned on or after 19.9.2008 will alone become
eligible for the benefits of this order.
6. It is further contended by the Appellant that the Respondent-6
was commissioned on 30.1.2009 and the energy purchase
agreement dated 30.1.2009 entered between the parties,
specifies the terms mentioned in order No.3 of 2006 only and
as such, the impugned order passed by the State
Commission giving the retrospective effect to the tariff order
No.1 of 2009 dated 20.3.2009 to all the Wind Power
Generators, the Respondents, is not valid in law.
7. In reply to the above submissions, the Learned Counsel for
the Respondents while justifying the impugned order that the
provisions of the tariff order No.1 of 2009 dated 20.3.2009
have specifically stipulated the payment of interest on
delayed payments and it is settled law that a person deprived
of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled, during a
particular period, has a right to be compensated by claiming
the interest for that period and therefore, the impugned order
is perfectly justified.

Page 6 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

8. In the light of the above rival contentions, the question that
arises for consideration is as follows:Whether the Respondents, the Wind Power Generators
are entitled for the payment of interest on delayed
payments made by the Appellant for the purchase of power
from the Wind Power Generators?
9. The Respondents, being Wind Power Generators have
entered

into

Energy

Purchase

Agreements

with

the

Appellants. Clause 5(b) of the agreements provides that the

payments to the Wind Power Generators in respect of the
power supplied shall be made by the Electricity Board within
the same period as provided by the Board to recover
payments from its HT industrial consumers.

The period

stipulated for recovery of dues from HT consumers is 7 days.

The Appellants admittedly failed to make such payments
within the stipulated 7 days to the Respondents and they
made delayed payments long after the expiry of stipulated
date without making payment towards interest on delayed
payment.
10. Clause 5(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Code 2004
entitles the Electricity Board to charge interest of 1.5% per
month on delayed payment in the case of HT consumers.
Similarly, Clause 5(b) of the Energy Purchase Agreement
provides that the payments to the Wind Power Generators in
respect of the power supplied by the them to the Board shall

Page 7 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

be made by the Electricity Board within the same period as
provided by the Board to recover payments from its HT
industrial consumers.
11. Therefore, the Appellant is bound to pay within the same
period as provided to HT consumers. It has not paid within
time. It ought to pay interest on delayed payment. If it is
claimed that the Board is not liable to pay the interest on
delayed payment, there will be no sanctity of clause 5(b) of
the Agreement imposing the time frame for payment.
Therefore, the Appellants can not claim for an exemption on
payment of interest on admitted delayed payments, especially
when the Board is entitled for the same from consumers.
12. The provisions of tariff order No.1 of 2009 dated 20.3.2009
which

govern

all

Wind

Power

Generating

Stations

commissioned on or after 19.9.2008 have specifically

stipulated payment of interest on delayed payments in clause
8.11 of the agreement. That apart, clause-8.12 provides that
stipulation regarding provision of bankable security in favour
of the Generators as required by the order No.3 of 2006
dated 15.5.2006 by the distribution licensee was found to be
impracticable. Therefore, the penalty of 1% per month was
stipulated for delayed payments to serve the ends of justice.
13. It is settled law, when a certain time limit has been
prescribed within which payments have to be made, it would

Page 8 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

mean that any payments made after the said time period
would be subject to the payment of interest as indicated
above. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for
Respondents, a person deprived of the use of money to
which he is legitimately entitled for a particular period has got
a right to be compensated by way of interest. This principle
has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in
Constitution Bench Judgement in Central Bank of India Vs
Ravindra reported in 2002 Vol.1, SCC 367.
14. As held by the Honble Supreme Court, the delayed
payments without any entitlement to interest on the same, will
lead to a situation whereby the Appellant would not be
inclined to pay in time.
15. In this context, it is to be pointed out that the very same
issue has been raised before this Tribunal in Appeal No.98 of
2010 by the Appellant Electricity Board as against the order
directing the payment of interest. This Tribunal through the
judgement dated 18.3.2011 dismissed the said Appeal
confirming the tariff order No.1 of 2009 dated 20.3.2009
holding that the Electricity Board is liable to pay the interest
for the delayed payment.
16. In the present case, even though there is no express
stipulation with regard to the interest, as pointed out by the
Commission, the Commission has invoked the powers, as
provided in the relevant sections of CPC to order the same.

Page 9 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

In the light of the various principles regarding the grant of
interest laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case
of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa Vs
G.C. Roy reported in 1992 Vol.1 SCC 508, the Respondent
Wind Power Generators are entitled to receive interest on the
admitted delayed payment.
17. In any power project, one of the important aspects is
promptitude in payment since the delays would seriously
affect the viability of the project.

All these projects are

substantially funded through finances obtained from various

funding organisations require regular repayment of principal
loan amount with interest by the generators. Only if regular
payments are made for the power generated and supplied,
the loans can be services long with the promised return of
investment.
18. The tariff order No.3 of 2006 dated 15.5.2006 passed by
the State Commission as well as the Energy Purchase
Agreements have specifically provided for certain period for
payment of such dues, the Appellants admittedly have not
paid the amount in time but in express violation of relevant
terms they have substantially delayed the payments for the
power supplied to them.
19. It has been contended that Respondent-6 alone is entitled
to the benefit of tariff order No.1 of 2009 dated 20.3.2009 and
others are not entitled and their projects have been

Page 10 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

commissioned prior to 19.9.2008. As a matter of fact, clause
8.11 of this order clarifies that any payment made after a
period of 30 days is liable to be paid along with interest of 1%
per month. That apart, when the question has been raised
with regard to the liability to pay interest, this Tribunal in
Appeal No.23 of 2010 by the judgement dated 9.7.2010
granted interest on the principal amount and thereby
confirming the jurisdiction of the Commission to award
interest. The relevant portions of the order passed in Appeal
No.23 of 2010 dated 9.7.2010 are as follows:The only question that arises for the consideration before this
Tribunal whether the State Commission was correct in
rejecting the claim for the interest made by the Appellant on
the ground that the claim was belated, then it was the TNEB
who was solely responsible for the delay in implementing the
order of the Commission, resulting in less amount being paid
to the Appellant. We have heard the learned Counsel for the
parties. It is not disputed that the principal amount which has
been claimed through petition filed in August, 2009 has been
ordered to be paid to the Appellant by the Respondent. In
regard to the interest the Commission rejected the claim
merely because the application for interest was belatedly
made. As correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel for
the Appellant that the Commission did not give any finding
with regard to the claim made by the Appellant in regard to
interest. It is not disputed that the claim for interest was
made during the pendency of the main application. As a
matter of fact the interim application has been filed in
November, 2009 and the Commissions order has been
passed on 16th November,2009 rejecting the claim for the
interest. The only reason given by the Commission for
rejecting the claim for interest is that the said claim was

Page 11 of 12

Judgement in Appeal No.11 of 2012

belatedly made. If this ground for rejection is accepted as a
valid ground for rejecting the claim for interest, it will apply to
the claim of principal amount as well. Admittedly, the findings
referred by the Commission is that Appellant is entitled to the
return of the principal amount, then it may not be proper on
the part of the Commission to hold that the claim for the
interest has been belatedly made. It is settled law that the
party is entitled to interest for the said amount. In the light of
the said decision of law, we are of the view that the findings
referred to by the Commission with regard to the rejection of
the claim of interest is liable to be set aside. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that
Appellant is entitled to interest @ 10% instead of 18% as
claimed by the Appellant.
20. The ratio decided by this Tribunal would squarely apply to
the present case as well.
21. Hence, our conclusion is as follows:
The Wind Power Generators are entitled for payment
of interest on delayed payment made by the Appellant
for the purchase of the power from the Generators.
22. In view of the above, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed as
devoid of merits. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
23. However, there is no order as to costs.

(RakeshNath)
(JusticeM.KarpagaVinayagam)
Technical Member
Chairperson
Dated: 17th

April, 2012

REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABALE

Page 12 of 12