Reading Time: 2 minutes
M/s. Sumatinath Enterprises filed a petition before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) seeking payment of outstanding dues amounting to ₹11,48,694 from the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL). The petition also requested late payment surcharges and penal interest on the delayed payments. The dispute stemmed from unpaid invoices for wind energy supplied by the petitioner during the period from April 2016 to March 2017. MSEDCL had permitted the short-term sale of wind energy from Sumatinath Enterprises’ windmills under an arrangement that did not involve a formal Energy Purchase Agreement but was based on specific tariff orders.
The petitioner argued that despite numerous follow-ups, including letters, emails, and legal notices, MSEDCL failed to settle the dues or provide any justification for the delay. Sumatinath Enterprises highlighted that part payments made by MSEDCL acknowledged the debt, and they relied on Supreme Court judgments to support their claim that the limitation period should exclude the COVID-19 pandemic timeframe.
MSEDCL contested the claim, stating that the demand was time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, as it pertained to a period beyond the statutory three-year limit for filing such claims. They argued that correspondence and representations do not extend the limitation period. MSEDCL also referred to multiple legal precedents to substantiate their position that the claims were legally untenable due to the delay and lack of a contractual payment term stipulating interest or surcharges.
After evaluating submissions and legal principles, the Commission determined that the claims for the period between April 2016 and March 2017 were indeed barred by the law of limitation. The Commission cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that limitation periods apply to proceedings before state regulatory commissions. Additionally, it found that the petition, filed in April 2024, was beyond the permissible period, even accounting for the exclusion of time due to the pandemic.
Based on these considerations, MERC dismissed the petition, ruling that the claims could not be entertained under the prevailing legal framework. This decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines for seeking legal remedies in cases involving financial disputes.
