Eyewitness Consistency is Key in Upholding Murder Convictions," Rules Rajasthan High Court State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case Ignoring Crucial Evidence is an Illegal Approach: P&H High Court in Remanding Ancestral Property Dispute for Fresh Appraisal A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes of Their Advocate: Madras High Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit 20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court Presumption of Innocence Fortified by Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Verdict in Accident Case Absence of Fitness Certificate Invalidates Insurance Claim, Rules MP High Court: Statutory Requirement Can't Be Ignored Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings Reassessment Must Be Based on New Tangible Material: Delhi High Court Quashes IT Proceedings Against Samsung India Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards' Repeated Writ Petitions Unacceptable: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenge Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in Light of Faceless Assessment Scheme Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court Temple's Ancient Land Rights Upheld: Kerala High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claims Expulsion Must Be Exercised in Good Faith — Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Adjudication in Partnership Dispute Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

Supreme Court Clarifies SEZ Developers' Deemed Distribution Licensee Status: No Additional Equity Infusion Required

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, May 17, 2024 – In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of M/S Sundew Properties Limited, a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, against the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TSERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The Supreme Court's decision clarified that SEZ developers automatically gain the status of deemed distribution licensees without the need for additional equity capital infusion as previously mandated by TSERC and upheld by APTEL.

Background of the Case

The case, which dates back to an appeal filed in 2019, involved M/S Sundew Properties Limited, an SEZ developer recognized by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The core issue revolved around whether the developer needed to infuse additional equity capital to be recognized as a deemed distribution licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

Timeline of Events:

2010: A notification by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry accorded SEZ developers deemed distribution licensee status under the Electricity Act, 2003.

2016: TSERC granted deemed licensee status to Sundew Properties, but with the condition of an additional equity infusion of Rs. 26.90 crore.

2019: APTEL upheld TSERC’s decision, leading to Sundew Properties' appeal to the Supreme Court.

Key Points of the Judgment

Deemed Distribution Licensee Status: The Supreme Court confirmed that SEZ developers automatically gain the status of deemed distribution licensees as per the 2010 Notification, without the need for further applications or conditions.

Exemption from Additional Capital Infusion: The Court found that the requirement imposed by TSERC for an additional equity infusion was unjustified and contrary to the statutory scheme. It emphasized that SEZ developers, being deemed licensees, should not be subjected to the same conditions as regular applicants for distribution licenses.

Statutory Interpretation: The Court highlighted that the 2005 Rules and regulation 12 of the 2013 Regulations, which deal with capital adequacy, do not apply to SEZ developers deemed to be distribution licensees. The distinction between regular applicants and deemed licensees was maintained.

Court Observations and Analysis

Justice Dipankar Datta, delivering the judgment, outlined the legal principles and interpretations underpinning the Court's decision. He noted the following key observations:

Deemed Status and Legislative Intent: The Court asserted that the 2010 Notification's proviso to section 14(b) of the Electricity Act grants SEZ developers the status of deemed licensees, intending to streamline their operations without additional bureaucratic hurdles.

Regulation 12 Applicability: The Court clarified that regulation 12, which pertains to regular applicants for distribution licenses, cannot be extended to deemed licensees like Sundew Properties. The imposition of additional capital requirements was deemed inconsistent with the legislative framework.

Reading Down and Up: Justice Datta emphasized the impermissibility of 'reading up' subordinate legislation to impose unintended conditions on deemed licensees, which could distort the legislative intent and the statutory scheme.

Decision: The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant clarification in the regulatory framework governing SEZ developers and their status as deemed distribution licensees. By setting aside the conditions imposed by TSERC and upheld by APTEL, the Court has reinforced the streamlined provisions intended for SEZ developers under the Electricity Act.

 

Date of Decision: May 17, 2024

M/S Sundew Properties Limited vs. Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Similar News