Respondent No. 5 Respondent NO.6 -3- ", Alish Traders Pvt. Ltd. 00, Xxxxxxxx Xxxx Road, Xxxx Xxxxxx, Terrace Room, Mumbai - 400 009. Xxxxxxx Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 00, Xxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxx, Terrace Room, Mumbai - 400 009. Respondent NO.7 Respondent NO.8 Before the Bench of Arbitrators: This is an Arbitration application
Respondent No. 1 has filed its reply on the petition with the request to allow the subject petition and approve the Second Addendum dated 08.06.2017 to the said PPA.
Respondent No. 1 PGVCL has been charging wheeling losses @ 10% on the energy injected from 1.25 MW WTG of the Petitioner since 30.3.2015. Additionally, Respondent No. 2 GETCO is charging 4 % transmission loss. The said action of the Respondents is in violation and against the provisions of Wind Power Policy- 2002 and Orders of the Commission. The Petitioner is entitled to wheel the power to its point of consumption on payment of 4 % wheeling charges. Hence, the Respondent No. 2 is required to be directed to refund 4 % transmission charges and Respondent No. 1 is required to be directed to adjust 6 % wheeling loss additionally charged by it since 31.3.2015 till date against future charges.
Respondent No. 1 thereafter claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell the aforesaid 39 shares by their owners and contended that the sale of those shares in favour of appellant No. 1 was not binding upon him. The trial court decided against respondent No. 1 but the High Court decided in his favour. In appeal before the Court the following questions came up for consideration : (i) whether there was an oral agreement between ’respondent No. 1 and all partners of the firm other than appellant No., 1 for sale of their shares on July 6, 1952; (ii) whether the oral agreement was ineffective because the parties contemplated the execution of a formal document or because the mode of payment of the purchase money was not actually agreed upon;
Respondent No. 2 submitted that the claim of the Petitioner to contend that POC in respect of the Expansion Units (excluding initial 77 MW) are not to be charged POC determined in terms of the Order dated 01.06.2011 passed by the Commission is wrong. The Petitioner is trying to take undue advantage of the POC under the Order dated 01.06.2011 being higher than the POC that was provided for in the Settlement Agreement dated 11.12.2009 based on CC No. 706 and the riders of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat.
Respondent No. 2 denied that the Petitioner falls in the exemption category provided in the judgement and Order dated 01.06.2011 and is not liable to pay the POC as claimed by the Respondents including at the rate of Rs 26.50 per kVA in respect of such CPPs. In the Order dated 01.06.2011 the Commission has decided that POC is leviable for the CPPs operating in parallel with the State Grid excluding those who had executed the agreement with the Respondents accepting the option of a time integration less than up to 3 minutes or the liability to pay the POC as per CC No. 706. The POC as per Order dated 01.06.2011 was to be applied to all those persons who had not entered into the above agreement. In the case of Petitioner herein, the agreement for 10 years to charge as per the commercial circular is limited to 77 MW generating stations and does not extend to any other generating units or capacity. The allegations to the contrary are wrong and are denied.
Respondent No. 2 submitted that it is correct that the Respondents approached the Commission for determination of POC. The proceedings of the Forum of Regulators are however not relevant for determination of the matter in issue. Determination of POC was for the Commission to decide in accordance with the provisions of law and not by the Forum of Regulators.
Respondent No. 2 submitted that the pleadings and submissions raised by the Petitioner in Petition No. 1429 of 2014 (already disposed of) challenging levy of Parallel Operation Charges for the period up to 01.06.2011 were inconsistent with the pleadings raised in the present Petition. It is denied that the entire capacity of 600.78 MW constitutes One Captive Power Plant and that the capacity of 220.48 MW and 302.8 MW should be treated only as an Expansion Capacity and subject to the same levy as applicable to the 77 MW. In the context of the undertaking and other documents, it is abundantly clear that the agreement between the parties in regard to the additional capacity of 220.48 MW and 302.8 MW were to be charged with effect from 01.06.2011 as per the charges determined by the Commission in the Order dated 01.06.
