No Reopening of Settled Claims: PSERC Rejects a Fresh LPS Claim After the Appellate Tribunal’s Judgment Order dated 13 October 2026 | Petition No. 47 of 2026

The Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (“PSERC”), vide its order dated 13 October 2026 in M/s Indian Sucrose Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Anr., dismissed a claim for Late Payment Surcharge (“LPS”).

Brief Facts

Indian Sucrose Limited had challenged the recovery of charges towards a 66 kV line and bay by PSPCL. The Appellate Tribunal, vide judgment dated 14 November 2024, directed PSPCL to charge only the depreciated book value of the line and bay and refund the excess amount. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed PSPCL’s appeal against the judgment dated 14 November 2024.

Indian Sucrose thereafter approached PSERC under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking LPS at 15% per annum under the Short-Term Power Purchase Agreement , along with interest and carrying cost.

Findings of the Commission

PSERC held that Indian Sucrose had already sought interest on the excess recovery in the earlier proceedings before Appellate Tribunal. However, the Appellate Tribunal had directed only a refund of the excess amount and had not granted the additional monetary relief sought.

The Commission rejected the contention that the subsequent claim constituted an independent contractual claim for LPS. It observed that the claim arose from the same energy bills and recovery that had formed the subject matter of the earlier proceedings. A party could not reopen or enlarge the relief finally adjudicated by assigning a different nomenclature to the subsequent claim.

PSERC further held that its jurisdiction under Section 86(1)(f) could not be exercised to reopen, modify or supplement a final judgment of Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the claims for LPS and interest were rejected and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Key Takeaway

The order reiterates the importance of finality. Parties must carefully formulate all monetary reliefs in the original proceedings, as a subsequent claim under a contractual provision may not be maintainable where it seeks additional relief arising from the same transaction already finally adjudicated.