Power purchase agreement rebate clause interpreted as prompt-payment incentive, with no substantial question of law for interference.

Clause 6.5 of the Power Purchase Agreement was construed as a rebate incentive linked to prompt payment of the monthly tariff invoice, not as a one-time expenditure. Read with Clause 6.2, which separately provided interest on belated payment, the provision was interpreted in the context of the agreement as a whole. The regulatory commission's and appellate tribunal's interpretation was treated as a plausible view, and no substantial question of law was found to justify interference under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

---

---

Issues: Whether Clause 6.5 of the Power Purchase Agreement created a one-time expenditure or operated as a rebate incentive for prompt payment of the monthly tariff invoice, and whether any substantial question of law arose for interference under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Analysis: The clause was construed in the context of the agreement as a whole. Clause 6.2 separately provided for interest on belated payment, while Clause 6.5(v) was understood as a rebate linked to prompt payment of the monthly invoice. The interpretation adopted by the regulatory commission and the appellate tribunal was held to be a plausible one, and no substantial question of law was found warranting interference in appeal.

Conclusion: Clause 6.5 was held to be an incentive for prompt payment, not a one-time expenditure, and the appeals failed for want of any substantial question of law.

---