Reading Time: 2 minutes
Several wind energy generators filed petitions seeking directions for the recovery of outstanding dues and delayed payment charges from the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) under their Wind Energy Purchase Agreements (WEPAs). The petitioners are from Panchpatta and Satara, operating long-term and short-term agreements for their wind power projects.
The petitioners complained that MSEDCL consistently delayed payments for the energy they provided, breaching the agreed terms. They also requested delayed payment charges (DPC) for unpaid invoices, with claims dating back to before March 2018 and after April 2018. MSEDCL, in response, argued that certain claims were barred by the law due to the statutory limitation period and maintained that it had made the necessary payments, including some after the filing of these petitions.
A key issue revolved around an agreement between the generators and MSEDCL. In December 2020, the petitioners signed an undertaking agreeing to waive DPC for the period from May 2018 to March 2021, in exchange for timely payments. However, MSEDCL failed to meet the agreed timelines, leading the petitioners to revoke this undertaking in November 2022. MSEDCL contested this revocation, arguing that the petitioners could not selectively revoke the agreement after accepting payments.
The Commission reviewed the petitions, noting that the law of limitation applies, meaning that claims older than three years from the date of filing would typically be time-barred. However, due to the Supreme Court’s ruling during the COVID-19 pandemic, certain time periods were excluded from the limitation count. Based on this, the Commission ruled that claims for April 2018 were time-barred, but claims from April 2021 onwards would be considered.
The Commission also addressed the issue of the DPC waiver, stating that although the undertaking did not specify a timeline, it was still a valid agreement. Thus, the petitioners could not claim DPC for the period they had waived in the undertaking. The Commission ultimately allowed claims for delayed payments made after the agreed waiver period but excluded claims during the waived timeframe.
In conclusion, while the petitioners received some of their dues, the Commission upheld the validity of the undertaking signed in 2020 and dismissed claims for delayed payment charges for the waived period. The case highlights the complexities of delayed payments in energy agreements and the impact of waiver agreements on such claims.
