Vikash Jain

Economic Times Report: Ministry of Power’s Rs 1,000 Crore ADEETIE Scheme for MSME Energy Efficiency The Economic Times has reported that the Ministry of Power is preparing to launch a Rs 1,000 crore initiative in December to encourage micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) to adopt energy-efficient technologies. The report states the initiative, named Assistance in Deploying Energy Efficient Technologies in Industries & Establishment (ADEETIE), will be managed by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) aiming to help MSMEs reduce both energy costs and emissions, supporting India’s commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2070. 1. Objective and Scope of ADEETIE 1.1 ADEETIE is intended to provide MSMEs with financial support through interest subvention to promote the adoption of energy-efficient technologies. 1.2 Large companies are excluded from ADEETIE to ensure the focus remains on supporting MSMEs. 1.3 Guidelines for ADEETIE implementation have reportedly been prepared and will soon be shared with the industry to facilitate smooth rollout. 2. Interest Subsidy Provisions Under ADEETIE: 2.1 MSMEs will receive an interest subsidy on loans taken for implementing energy-efficient technologies. 2.1.1 A 5% interest subsidy is available for small enterprises. 2.1.2 A 3% interest subsidy is available for medium enterprises. 2.2 These subsidies are designed to reduce operational costs and emissions, aiding India’s broader environmental commitments. 3. Supported Technologies and Capacity Building 3.1 Technologies likely to be supported under ADEETIE include: 3.1.1 Automation systems 3.1.2 Combustion control for boilers 3.1.3 Methane capture 3.1.4 Air-dyeing technology 3.2 ADEETIE includes provisions for capacity building, with BEE providing assistance through its online platform to facilitate financing for energy-efficient projects in the MSME sector. 4. Legislative Alignment and Strategic Importance 4.1 ADEETIE reportedly aligns with the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2022, mandating clean energy use and establishes a framework for carbon markets. 4.2 With MSMEs contributing approximately 40% of India’s industrial output and 37.54% of GDP, this sector is a critical focus of the Indian Government’s energy savings strategy. 5. Government’s Commitment to MSMEs 5.1 ADEETIE reflects the Indian Government’s commitment to: 5.1.1 Lowering the costs of advanced energy-efficient technologies for MSMEs. 5.1.2 Helping MSMEs reduce their carbon footprint. 5.1.3 Enhancing MSME competitiveness in the global market. Conclusion: ADEETIE appears to be a strategic move by the Indian Government, focusing on a dual objective of supporting MSMEs by lowering costs and encouraging energy-efficient technologies. It aims to create a level playing field for MSMEs, promoting sustainable growth while advancing India’s environmental goals through the adoption of energy-efficient technologies.

1

NCLT: INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED AGREEMENTS NO BAR FOR INITIATING CIRP NCLT admits CIRP application filed by Q West Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (an NBFC - Financial Creditor) against Starwort Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) u/s 7 of the IBC, for a default of over Rs. 17 cr., in repaying the sum due from an Inter Corporate Deposit Agreement and a Settlement Agreement, and holds that “…inadequacy of any document in terms of requirement of the Stamp Act…cannot be made a ground to nonsuit the Petitioner in an Application u/s 7 of the Code.”; Adds that “Rather, in such proceedings, this Authority has simply to arrive at a conclusion that the Corporate Debtor has not been able to repay its debts of more than Rs. 1 crore and is no longer in a position to sustain itself financially so much that it requires resolution”; Corporate Debtor argued that as both the documents were insufficiently stamped, the Sec. 7 application couldn’t be filed, since such documents are not admissible in evidence, and nor can the Corporate Debtor’s liability be ascertained or quantified basis these documents; Tribunal remarks that, “This Authority is not envisaged to ascertain the liability of the Corporate Debtor strictly on the basis of loan or security agreements and other documents executed by the Corporate Debtor or its Guarantors, and the existence of debt can be proved by other evidences also…it can be proved by other means, as provided in Section 7(3) of the IBC prescribing record of default recorded with the information utility or such other records or evidence such may be specified.”; NCLT observes that in the present case the existence of debt is evidenced by the bank statement showing disbursement and further by financial statement of the corporate debtor, and opines that even if the contention of the Corporate Debtor is accepted that the ICD Agreement and Settlement documents cannot be taken in evidence to establish the existence of debt and default in payment, the fact of debt and default stands proved otherwise by other evidences, and therefore, concludes that the Sec. 7 application deserves to be admitted, declares moratorium, and appoints IRP:NCLT MUM The order was passed by Justice V.G. Bisht (Member - Judicial) and Shri. Prabhat Kumar (Member - Technical).

3

SEBI: SLAPS PENALTIES ON RELIANCE INFRA, RELIANCE POWER, OTHERS, FOR NON-SUBMISSION OF ‘NO-DEFAULT STATEMENT’ TO CRAS SEBI slaps penalties of Rs. 1 cr. each on Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Reliance Power Ltd. and Incredible Realcon Pvt. Ltd. and a total penalty of Rs. 40 lakh on 4 other entities, all of whom issued debt securities or whose debt securities are listed, for non-submission of ‘No Default Statement’ (NDS) to Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs); States that Regulation 8 of the LODR Regulations mandates that a listed entity shall cooperate with and submit correct and adequate information to the intermediaries registered with SEBI, including registered CRAs; Against Reliance Infra and Reliance Power’s contention that the NDS could not be submitted on account of oversight due to certain difficulties being faced by them, like stress and a churn in personnel of the cos. who were responsible for providing such NDS at the relevant time, Regulator holds that the conclusion that one can arrive at, is that if the disclosures of the “stress” were made at the appropriate time, the rating would have factored in the stress; Adds that however, that was not done which shows wilful non-compliance with the requirement to file monthly NDS as well as the material event based disclosure, arising out of the “adverse circumstances”, and thus holds them liable for violation of Regulation 8 of the LODR Regulations; Further, referring to the Circular dated June 30, 2017, titled “Monitoring and Review of Ratings by Credit Rating Agencies”, whereby CRAs were instructed to obtain the NDS statements from issuer companies on a monthly basis SEBI highlights that, “An issuer-company is expected to furnish the same to its CRA, confirming that it had not delayed on any payment of interest/ principal in the previous month on the first working day of the next month. The CRAs were mandated to constantly monitor the ratings that they had assigned to the Issuers by obtaining the declarations in a specific format.”; SEBI remarks that “The non-filing of NDS may have resulted in certain benefits to those issuers such as continuance or extensions of bank accommodations on loans or reduced cost of borrowings etc. It is an undisputable inference that the issuers could have gained such benefits by avoiding filing of NDS to CRAs, during times of financial stress.”, and adds that simply put, the Noticees can choose not to file NDS during such stressful periods and dodge the CRAs from downgrading the debt securities based on the disclosures:SEBI The order was passed by Ms. Geetha G. (Adjudication Officer).

1

Is increase in Diesel price claimed under Change-in-Law in a firm price contract?   SEAMEC Ltd (Appellant) Vs Oil India Ltd (Respondent) Supreme Court of India Reportable Judgement dated 11.05.2020 (Civil Appeal No 673/2012). 1.     Contract: Oil India had awarded contract in July 1995 to SEAMEC for well drilling in Assam w.e.f June 1996 for two years and same was extended by two years on mutual agreement basis to Oct 2000. 2.     Dispute: During execution, the price of High-Speed-Diesel (HSD), one of the essential materials, increased. Reimbursement of increase in HSD price was denied by Oil India. SEAMEC invoked arbitration for claim under Change in Law (Clause 23). 3.     Arbitral Tribunal: Arbitral Tribunal in Dec 2003, allowed the claim of SEAMEC amount 1.32 Crs , stating that “…an increase in HSD price through a circular issued under the authority of State or Union is not a law in the literal sense, but has the force of law and thus falls within the ambit of Clause 23”. The arbitral tribunal held that Clause 23 (Change in law) must be liberally construed and any circular of the GoI would amount to a change in Law. Clause 23 (Change in law) may be termed as the Habendum Clause containing various granting clauses. 4. The District Judge upheld the Arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, citing that it did not warrant judicial interference. 5. The High Court, under judicial review under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, held that interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal is ERRONEOUS and against the Public Policy of India and set aside the award of the Tribunal. 6. The Supreme Court finds the arbitral award in is conflict with the Public Policy of India. SC stated that the arbitral award should not be interfered with in a casual and cavalier manner. SC stated that as per the Rule of Interpretation, the Arbitral Tribunal correctly held that a contract needs to be interpreted taking into consideration all the clauses of the contract, but it failed to apply the same standard while interpreting Clause 23 of the Contract. 7.     Clauses 14.7 and 14.11 of the Contract states that the rates, terms and conditions were to be in force until the completion or abandonment of the last well being drilled i.e the contract was based on a fixed rate. As per the list of consumables mentioned in the contract, fuel would be supplied by the contractor, at his expense. If the purpose of the tender was to limit the risks of price variations, then the interpretation placed by the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be said to be possible one, as it would completely defeat the explicit wordings and purpose of the contract. 8. The Supreme Court stated that the interpretation of the contract by the Arbitral Tribunal to include change in rate of HSD in Clause 23 is not a possible interpretation of the contract. The appeal of SEAMEC was dismissed by SC and upheld the award by Hight Court. The price escalation on HSD is not payable by Oil India to SEAMEC.

4

4 Comments

The Tata Power group is gearing up for another significant International Arbitration, wherein an ICC claim has been brought by Indonesia's Adaro Energy. Adaro is seeking USD 106 Million for alleged breach of a contract for supply of high calorific value coal for the Trombay thermal power plant that Tata Power operates in Mumbai. In response to this, Tata Power has submitted a counter claim under USD 230 Million for non-supply under the agreement. The relation that the parties shared since 2020 has now come to a face off on the account of various environmental groups in Indonesia that have put pressure on the home party to accommodate measures and means to switch to renewable energy, which in turn is influencing the performance of the agreement. More developments are yet to take place with respect to the formation of tribunal and appointment of counsels for either parties. #adr #internationalarbitration #commerical #energy #disputeresolution #ICC #tata #adaro

3

Electricity Commissions in past, have exercised Section 142 (Electricity Act) power to impose penalty on Distribution Companies to be paid to Commission, however, Telangana Electricity Commission, in one of its first kind order directed distribution company to make payment of cost (as a penalty) to generating company (apart from direction to immediate payment of Principal, interest amount and penalty payment to ERC) In my limited knowledge (subject to be corrected), there is no precedent of any order, wherein Electricity Commission has directed Distribution Companies to pay penalty amount to Generating Companies. Penalty act as a deterrent to ensure better compliance of the order. Penalty signifies that there is an wiful default and it will restrict Distribution Companies in disputing any invoice on Prapti Portal.  As a regulatory practitioner, I am witnessing an effort from almost all Electricity Regulatory Commissions to balance the interest of stakeholders. There is visible difference in approach. We represented petitioner in this matter. Anukriti Jain Dentons Link Legal https://lnkd.in/gGNnQcSS

90

4 Comments

Once the Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is confirmed, The Arbitrator decides the issues as per the evidence on record and pass the Award. When there is delay in concluding the contract,the delay also needs to be addressed and the extended costs to be awarded. 6 During the course of the arbitration the claimant raised several claims amounting to Rs 77.16 lacs including those on account of (i) price variation; (ii) idling charges of supervisory staff and labour; (iii) idling charges for machines, tools and tackles; (iv) compensation for extended stay for civil work; (v) interest from 7 March 1986 (i.e. the date of submission of bills) to 31 December 1997 at 18 per cent; (vi) escalation on account of gas; (vii) price variation of electrodes; (viii) legal expenses; and (ix) future interest at 18 per cent. 7 The sole arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs 10,73,969/- on account of idling charges of labour and machinery and towards price escalation. In addition, a lumpsum of Rs 20 lacs as interest was awarded between 7 March 1986 and 31 December 1997. Future interest was awarded at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the sum awarded, after a period of three months from the date of the award. Supreme Court of India justified that claimant is entitled to interest on the sum awarded from 20 April 1987 to 31 December 1997 and thereafter from the date of the decree of the trial Court until payment or realisation. The rate of interest is, however, modified to 12 per cent per annum, in respect of both the above periods.

3

📢 NCLAT Ruling: Related Party Unsecured Financial Creditor Gets Priority Over Operational Creditor In a key judgment, i.e. Times Innovative Media Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal (Liquidator) & Anr dated 19.09.2024, the NCLAT has ruled that related party unsecured financial creditors (FCs) have priority over operational creditors (OCs) during liquidation under Section 53 of the IBC. 🔑 Key Ruling: The hon’ble NCLAT held that Section 53 does not distinguish between related and unrelated unsecured FCs, granting both higher priority over OCs in the liquidation distribution. This ruling reaffirms that financial debts take precedence over operational debts, even for related parties. #IBC #NCLAT #InsolvencyLaw #FinancialCreditors #CorporateLaw #Liquidation

7

JSA Prism | Energy | May 2024 Supreme Court upholds the decision of APTEL directing that there is no statutory basis to levy additional reliability charge for uninterrupted power supply to bulk consumers.   The Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment has re-affirmed the law laid down by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”), that charges cannot be levied by Distribution Companies on its consumers without any statutory basis under the Electricity Act., 2003. The judgment holds that bulk / industrial consumers are already subjected to higher tariffs which negate the need for the imposition of an additional reliability charge for implementing ‘Zero Load Shedding’.   To read further details, please click here: https://lnkd.in/gKQ6MUrp Anupam Varma | Aditya Ajay | Akshata Sharma #jsa #leadinglawfirm #leadinglawyers #legalupdates #climatechange #prism

17

⚖️IBBI Proposes Pre-Institution Mediation for Operational Creditors 📕 In a significant move towards streamlining insolvency proceedings, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has suggested allowing mediation between operational creditors (OCs) and corporate debtors (CDs) before insolvency proceedings begin. The IBBI’s recent paper points out that OCs often seek repayment rather than full resolution of a corporate debtor, and many cases settle even before admission to NCLT. This pre-institution mediation proposal, inspired by the Commercial Courts Act, aims to reduce the NCLT backlog and facilitate faster case admissions. 📝 Public comments are open until November 24. #ibc #insolvency #ibbi #law #disputeresolution

14

4 Comments

At the Association of International Energy Negotiators (AIEN) 2024 International Energy Summit, Bangkok, talking about the challenges of carbon storage & utilisation. The industry in India would need to figure this out as over C 70% of Indian's energy is generated by fossil fuel.

100

6 Comments

https://lnkd.in/g_DKqxwr What is the green hydrogen law? What are the rules for green hydrogen in India? What is the government scheme for green hydrogen? REGULATORY & POLICY FRAMEWORK IN INDIA Green Hydrogen Policy National Green Hydrogen Mission Clear your doubts with Mr Raj singh niranjan

1

NCLAT :: As on date guarantee has not been invoked cannot be a ground for Corporate Debtor to be liquidated under Section 59 of the IBC (Voluntary Liquidation) - Iskon Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India. NCLAT held that: (i) The fact that guarantee has not been invoked, does not absolve the Corporate Guarantor from debt. The debt which is Corporate Guarantor, the Company has been given corporate guarantee and undertaken to pay the debt. (ii) The liability of Corporate Guarantor is co- extensive with the Lenders and the Lenders are at liberty to require the performance by the Guarantor of its obligation. (iiI) The submission of the Appellant that since guarantee has not been invoked there is no debt cannot be accepted. Guarantee continues to bind the Corporate Guarantor to discharge its liability and the fact that as on date, guarantee has not been invoked, cannot be a ground for Appellant to be liquidated under Section 59 of the IBC.

6

The exclusion clause would not operate beyond the original completion period - Supreme Court of India Caase title: Assam State Electricity Board and Ors. vs. Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. (04.07.2017 - SC) : MANU/SC/0765/2017, Coram Dr DY Chandrachud Facts: An agreement was entered into between the Board and the Appellant for the supply and installation of a circulating Water Piping System. The date for the completion of the work was extended and a petition was filed before Arbitrator on account of idling charges of labour and machinery and towards price escalation. Award was passed by Arbitrator based on evidentiary material. The Arbitrator held that the Appellant contributed to the delay in the execution of the work. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant by setting aside the award of interest of Arbitrator. Hence, present appeal by the Appellant. Point of contention: Clause 2.3(a)(i) of the purchase order which is extracted below: PRICES: 2.3. a) Escalation. 1. The increase in price of steel labour valve, expansion joints, electrodes etc., shall be to Boards accounts, with the overall ceiling of Rs. 9,16,825/- on submission of documentary evidence. 11. The contention of the claimant was that Clause 2.3(a)(i) applied only for the specific period mentioned in the purchase order and not for the extended period of the contract. According to the Board, a cap of Rs. 9.16 lacs was imposed under the above provision and no price escalation was permissible beyond it. Honble #supremecourt held, while allowing the appeal: 23. The contract in the present case contains no bar or prohibition against the award of interest. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the Board that the claimant was paid a sum of Rs. 9,16,825/- towards escalation, which was the amount contemplated under Clause 2.3.1 of the Contract. However, as we have noted, this provision in the contract was correctly held by the arbitrator to apply only during the scheduled term of the contract and not in respect of the extended period. The Respondent in its initial demands dated 7 March 1986 and 23 April 1986 made claims on account of price escalation and submitted a consolidated bill on 9 June 1986. On 20 April 1987 the claimant addressed a legal notice, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,73,416/- together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. In the circumstances upon the issuance of the above notice, the claimant was clearly entitled to claim interest with effect from 20 April 1987. The High Court was hence in error in setting aside the award of interest. #india #construction #escalation #delays #arbitration ADROIT CLAIMS & ADR CONSULTANTS

56

4 Comments

NCLT: FINANCIAL CREDITOR CAN’T BE NON-SUITED FOR STAMPING DEFICIENCY, WHEN DEBT, DEFAULT PROVED NCLT admits an insolvency petition u/s 7 of IBC filed by Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA / Financial Creditor / Petitioner) against Shri Saikrupa Sugar and Allied Industries Limited (Corporate Debtor), holds that ”…Petitioner cannot be non-suited on account of deficiency in stamping of the loan documents, especially, when the existence of debt and its default stands otherwise proved on record.”; W.r.t. the fact that winding up proceedings in respect of the Corporate Debtor are already on, NCLT states that the same cannot be taken to be a deterrent for initiating proceedings u/s 7 of IBC; Financial Creditor submitted that from the acknowledgments made by the Corporate Debtor from time to time, it has been established on record that the Corporate Debtor is in default of Rs. 150.06 cr. In respect of the financial debt availed from the Financial Creditor and further the present Petition has been filed within the period of limitation, on the contrary Corporate Debtor argued that all the documents are relied upon by the Financial Creditor are insufficiently stamped, therefore, the same cannot be validly read in evidence nor any action can be initiated in any Court of Law on the basis of the insufficiently stamped documents; Elucidating that “…merely on the basis of the insufficiently stamped documents, the Petitioner/Financial Creditor cannot be non-suited. It is well settled that proceedings under Section 7 are not recovery proceedings. Rather the same are summary proceedings and no evidence is required to be recorded before arriving at a conclusion as to what amount the Corporate Debtor owes to the Financial Creditor.”, Tribunal specifies that the admissibility of the loan documents in question could be challenged by the Corporate Debtor only in recovery proceeding where such documents are sought to have been proved in evidence in accordance with the provision of the Indian Evidence Act, even otherwise, now it is a settled proposition of law that insufficiency of a document not sufficiently stamped in accordance with the Maharashtra Stamp Act is not a fatal defect; Further observing that the Financial Creditor has placed on record many documents such as statement duly certificated by Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 which is per se admissible evidence and on the basis of the same also, it can be safely held that the Corporate Debtor owes a sum of more than Rs. 1 cr. To the Financial Creditor, NCLT emphasizes that this has to be viewed against the fact that the Corporate Debtor has not at all denied having taken the loan at any point of time nor has denied the execution of the loan documents, rather, the Corporate Debtor has been acknowledging its liability in the balance sheets from time to time