Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Generation And vs Ptc India Ltd on 20 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.10.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.154 of 2021
The Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corp. Ltd.,
rep. by its Chairman,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2. ..Appellant
Vs
1.PTC India Ltd.,
2nd Floor, NBCC Tower,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110 066.
2.Arkay Energy (Rameswaram) Ltd.,
New No.20/Old No.129,
Chambers Road, Chennai - 25. ..Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 23.07.2018 in W.P.No.11228 of 2017.
For Appellant .. Mr.J.Ravindran,
Addl. Advocate General
assisted by Mr.Jai Venkatesh
For Respondents .. Mr.Ravi Kishore for R1
Mr.Advaidh Nelakantan for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order passed by learned
Single Judge dated 23 July, 2018 in W.P.No.11228 of 2017 whereby
the petition was partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the first respondent
is in appeal.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Single Judge erred in arriving at the conclusion that production
of bank guarantee would be sufficient to balance the equities between
the parties. It is submitted that even the partial relief which is granted
by learned Single Judge ought not to have been in the facts of the
case. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the first respondent
has submitted that an innocuous order is passed by learned Single
Judge, where the interest of all the parties are duly protected and no
interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that this appeal be
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
having considered the material on record, this Court finds that, the
case of the original petitioner is examined in detail by learned Single
Judge and since the issue pertained to power purchase agreement
between the parties, considering the totality, the equities are balanced
between the parties by ordering the original petitioner to give a bank
guarantee for a sum of Rs.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores only)
and on receipt of the same, it is open to the first respondent to accept
and to proceed before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory
Commission for encashing the same in the event necessity arises.
Paragraph 7 of the order of learned Single Judge is relevant, which
reads as under:-
"7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the view that without even
determining the liquidated damages, it is not open
to the 1st respondent to proceed against the
petitioner company to deduct from the running
account bills raised by the petitioner in connection
with other contract. It is represented by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that since the
petitioner is a Public Limited Company and also
having Inter State Trading Licence under Section
14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, they are prepared
to offer bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
crores in lieu of the set off made against the
petitioner company by the 1st respondent."
5. Considering the totality, this Court finds that, the relief
granted by learned Single Judge, in the facts noted above, cannot be
said to be any error apparent on the face of record, which may call for
any interference by this Court in an intra-court appeal. In totality, no
interference is required.
6. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.739 of 2021
is closed.
(P.U., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
20.10.2021
Index:Yes/No
ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
ssm
W.A.No.154 of 2021
20.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
