M/S Bangalore Electricity Supply Company LTD vs. Core Green Sugars And Fuels PVT LTD

Facts

The review petitioners, five electricity supply companies in Karnataka, sought to review a judgment dated 08.11.2021 passed in W.P. No. 103178/2021. The original writ petition concerned Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with respondents 1 to 3, who are sugar and fuel companies. The petitioners' primary contention for review was that the earlier judgment treated respondent No.3 (Athani Sugars Ltd.) on par with respondents No.1 and 2, despite a difference in their PPAs. Specifically, the PPA with respondent No.3 had a clause limiting its term to the year 2020-2021, while the PPAs with respondents No.1 and 2 were for five years from their respective execution dates. The petitioners argued this difference warranted a modification of the earlier court's directions concerning respondent No.3.

Held

The High Court, in its review order, acknowledged that there was no dispute that respondent No.3 had supplied power until 31.03.2022. Based on this factual admission, the Court decided to partly allow the review petition. The benefit of the earlier order dated 08.11.2021, passed in W.P. No. 103178/2021, was to be restricted for respondent No.3 until 31.03.2022. This implies that while the previous judgment's directions would apply to respondent No.3, their applicability would cease on that date, aligning with the factual position of power supply rather than strictly adhering to the original PPA term limitation of 2020-2021. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with respondent No.3, Athani Sugars Ltd., which had a limited term until 2020-2021, should be treated differently from the PPAs with respondents No.1 and 2, which were for a five-year period, in light of the High Court's previous judgment dated 08.11.2021 in W.P. No. 103178/2021? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of contractual terms and the previous court order). Contentions: Petitioner (Electricity Supply Companies): The PPA with respondent No.3 had a specific clause limiting its term to 2020-2021, unlike the PPAs with respondents No.1 and 2 which were for five years. Therefore, the previous judgment, which treated all three respondents equally, should be reviewed and modified concerning respondent No.3. Respondents No.1 to 3 (Sugar and Fuel Companies): Although the PPA term for respondent No.3 was until 2020-2021, respondent No.3 continued to supply power until 31.03.2022. Consequently, the benefit of the PPA should be extended to respondent No.3.