Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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.

Latest Legal News