Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2023 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1318 - SC - Indian LawsChange in Law relief on account of New Coal Distribution Policy, 2013 (NCDP 2013) - should be on actuals viz. as against 100% of normative coal requirement assured in terms of New Coal Distribution Policy, 2007 (NCDP 2007) or restricted to trigger levels in NCDP 2013 viz. 65%, 65%, 67% and 75% of ACQ? - for computing 'Change in Law' relief, the operating parameters should be considered on 'actuals' OR as per technical information submitted in bid? - 'Change in Law' relief compensation is to be granted from 1st April 2013 (start of Financial Year) or 31st July 2013 (date of NCDP 2013)? HELD THAT:- The 'Change in Law' happens to be by way of adoption, promulgation, amendment, re-enactment or repeal of the law or 'Change in Law', it has to be effected from the date on which such change occurs. This Court has clearly held that the DISCOMS have a contractual obligation to make timely payment of the invoices raised by the power generating companies, subject to scrutiny and verification of the same. This Court has rejected the contention that the funding cost was much lesser than the rate of LPS. This Court has reiterated the proposition that the courts cannot rewrite a contract which is executed between the parties. This Court has emphasized that it cannot substitute its own view of the presumed understanding of commercial terms by the parties, if the terms are explicitly expressed. It has been held that the explicit terms of a contract are always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties. This Court has reiterated that once carrying cost has been granted, it cannot be urged that interest on carrying cost should be calculated on simple interest basis instead of compound interest basis. It has been held that grant of compound interest on carrying cost and that too from the date of the occurrence of the 'Change in Law' event is based on sound logic. It has been held that it is aimed at restituting a party that is adversely affected by a 'Change in Law' event and restore it to its original economic position as if such a 'Change in Law' event had not taken place. The argument that there is no provision in the PPAs for payment of compound interest from the date when the 'Change in Law' event had occurred, has been specifically rejected by this Court. In view of this consistent position of law and application of restitutionary principles and privity of contractual obligations between the parties as contained in the PPAs, it is not found that the view taken by the learned APTEL with regard to carrying cost warrants interference. Thus, this Court should be slow in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact unless they are found to be perverse, arbitrary and either in ignorance of or contrary to the statutory provisions. Appeal allowed.
|