TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court extends benefits under Modified Sanctioned Scheme for entire rehabilitation period</h1> <h3>IPISTEEL Limited Versus Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited</h3> IPISTEEL Limited Versus Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Implementation of the Revised Rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned by BIFR.2. Interpretation of the reliefs and concessions under the Modified Sanctioned Scheme.3. Validity and enforcement of BIFR's clarificatory letter dated 05.11.2003.4. Refund/adjustment of excess payment made by the petitioner.5. Legality of CESCO's demand for Rs. 6,35,19,199/- from the petitioner.Detailed Analysis:1. Implementation of the Revised Rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned by BIFR:The petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus commanding CESCO to implement the Revised Rehabilitation Scheme sanctioned by BIFR. The scheme, initially sanctioned in 1995 and modified in 1997, provided various reliefs and concessions for the revival of IPISTEEL. The petitioners argued that CESCO had not properly implemented these reliefs, particularly those related to the power tariff during the rehabilitation period.2. Interpretation of the reliefs and concessions under the Modified Sanctioned Scheme:The core issue was the interpretation of clause 8 of page 7 of the Modified Sanctioned Scheme, which stated, 'During the period of break-down/rehabilitation, GRIDCO shall charge for the actual quantity of demand based on energy actually consumed in lieu of demand charges.' The petitioners contended that this relief should apply for the entire rehabilitation period (01.07.1995 to 30.06.2002), not just during electrical breakdowns. The court examined the scheme's background and found that the term 'break-down/rehabilitation' should be interpreted to cover the entire rehabilitation period, not limited to electrical breakdowns.3. Validity and enforcement of BIFR's clarificatory letter dated 05.11.2003:The BIFR issued a clarificatory letter on 05.11.2003, stating that the reliefs should apply for the entire rehabilitation period. The Supreme Court, in a previous judgment, held that this letter was not an official order of the BIFR. However, the petitioners obtained a copy of the BIFR's Note Sheet, which contained the order clarifying the reliefs. The court found that the Note Sheet and subsequent orders from BIFR consistently supported the interpretation that the reliefs were for the entire rehabilitation period.4. Refund/adjustment of excess payment made by the petitioner:The petitioners sought a refund or adjustment of Rs. 4,47,26,435/- for excess payments made during the rehabilitation period. The court directed CESCO to extend the benefits and concessions for the entire rehabilitation period, implying that any excess payments made due to incorrect interpretation should be refunded or adjusted.5. Legality of CESCO's demand for Rs. 6,35,19,199/- from the petitioner:The petitioners challenged CESCO's demand for Rs. 6,35,19,199/-, arguing it violated the modified sanctioned scheme. The court's interpretation of the reliefs and concessions as applicable for the entire rehabilitation period indirectly addressed this issue, suggesting that CESCO's demand was not in line with the scheme's provisions.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition, directing CESCO to extend the benefits and concessions envisaged under clause 8 of page 7 of the Modified Sanctioned Scheme for the entire rehabilitation period. This decision clarified that the reliefs were not limited to periods of electrical breakdowns but covered the entire rehabilitation duration, ensuring the petitioners received the intended support for their revival efforts.
TaxTMI 