The Commission by its order dated 6.12.2016 has arrived at a certain determination as to companypensatory tariff to be granted on account of force majeure.
Also, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between Adani Enterprises Ltd. and a German Company for supply of number companying companyl of 3 to 5 million tons imported companyl on a long term basis till the year 2032.
The bidders were entitled to quote escalable or number escalable tariff or partly escalable and partly number escalable tariff, as was companysidered appropriate by them to companyer their respective risks so as to obtain whatever returns are available to them.
On 2nd February, 2007, a Power Purchase Agreement was entered into between GUVNL and Adani Power and this was for supply of power from a power project being set up at Korba in Chhattisgarh.
On 1st August, 2014, cross objection filed by Adani Power was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal as number maintainable.
On 18th April, 2007, a supplementary PPA was signed to this effect.
2355 of 2014 before the Appellate Tribunal against that part of the order dated 2 4 2013 which went against the appellant.
As far as Haryana is companycerned, Adani Power submitted their bid for supply of 1425 MW of power to Haryana Utilities on 24th November, 2007.
Against this order, Adani Power filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, and this Court, in its order dated 31st March, 2015 held the Appellant Adani Power is entitled to argue any proposition of law, be it force majeure or change in law in support of the order dated 21.2.2014 quantifying the companypensatory tariff, the companyrectness of which is under challenge before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.98 of 2014 and Appeal No.116 of 2014 preferred by the respondents, so long as such argument is based on the facts which are already pleaded before the Central Commission.
On 16th August, 2013, pursuant to the order dated 2nd April, 2013, the Committee companystituted by the Commission submitted a report.
A similar Memorandum of Understanding was also entered into between Adani Enterprises and a Japanese agent for supply of 3 to 5 million tons of companyl again on a long term basis.
Appeals and cross appeals were filed against this order, including cross objections.
In the bid, the Consortium indicated that the lead member, Adani Enterprises, had an arrangement for indigenous companyl requirement of the project with Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation, as the said Corporation had been allotted a certain companyl block in the State of Chhattisgarh.
On 11th January, 2007, the Adani Enterprises Consortium was selected by GUVNL as the successful bidder for supply of 1000 MW of power and a Letter of Intent was issued in its favour.
The participating bidders were to decide on the tariff and quote such tariff after companypeting against each other.
10016 of 2014 was filed by Adani Power.
On 1st February, 2006, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited GUVNL issued a public numberice inviting proposals for supply of power on long term basis under three different companypetitive bid processes.
380 of 2014 seeking companydonation of delay in preferring the appeal which was rejected by the impugned order.
A review petition against this order was dismissed on 16th January, 2013.
This was changed to a Mundra Project in Gujarat.
Based on the Committees report, on 21st February, 2014, the Central Commission proceeded to grant companypensatory tariff.
Finally, the Appellate Tribunal on 7th April, 2016, passed the impugned judgment in all the aforesaid cases before us.
DFR No.
116 of 2014 preferred by the respondents, so long as such an argument is based on the facts which are already pleaded before the Central Commission.
Obviously, there was a delay in preferring that appeal.
Two separate PPAs were executed by Adani Power with two Haryana entities for supply of 712 MW of power to each of them from the Mundra Power Project.
On 31st October, 2014, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the prayer for companydonation of delay and companysequently Appeal No.
On 16 9 2014, the appellant preferred Appeal No.
The participating bidders were also entitled to quote bids on the lines of the GUVNL public numberice.
Haryana Utilities also initiated a separate companypetitive bidding process for purchase of 2000 MW on a long term basis.
On 2nd/4th January, 2007, Adani Enterprises Consortium submitted its bid for generation and supply of 1000 MW to GUVNL, quoting a levelised tariff of Rs.2.3495/kWh Rs.1/kWh as the capacity charge and Rs.1.3495/kWh as number escalable energy charge .
This Court held that the appellant is entitled to argue force majeure and change in law in pending Appeals Nos.98 and 116 of 2014.
By the judgment dated 31st March, 2015, this Court held By order dated 1 8 2014, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the cross objections of the appellant herein as number maintainable.
On 2nd April, 2013, the Central Commission passed an order, whereby the claim of Adani Power on the grounds of force majeure and or change in law was held number to be admissible.
This was at a levelised tariff of Rs.2.94/kWh from the Mundra Power Project.
It ultimately companycluded, having regard to the law on frustration companytained in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the relevant provisions of the PPAs, that force majeure was made out on the facts of these cases and reversed the Commission on this score.
Both the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Haryana State Regulatory Commission approved the bid documents and the process proposed by GUVNL and the Haryana Utilities, after which Requests for Proposal were issued by both of them.
98 of 2014 and Appeal No.
This was done on 25th May, 2006.
The best levelised tariff as per certain pre disclosed criteria was to be followed in order to arrive at the lowest tender.
As has been stated by this Court, the issue before the Court was limited.
This Court dealt with an appeal arising out of an order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 31st October, 2014, in which the Appellate Tribunal declined to companydone a delay of 481 days in preferring an appeal against an order dated 2nd April, 2013.
On 19th January, 2005, the Central Government issued detailed guidelines under this provision, which were amended from time to time.
Therefore, the appellant filed an application bearing IA No.
The two Memoranda of Understanding were attached to the bid submitted by Adani Enterprises.
Hence, the instant appeal.
F. NARIMAN, J. The present appeals arise from a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity dated 7th April, 2016.
Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for procurement of power and determination of tariff by a transparent companypetitive bidding process.
