Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
157. In Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty36, this Court held that interference with concurrent findings of the courts below must be avoided under Section 100 of the CPC unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, this Court is not expected to reappreciate the evidence.
158. The questions of law raised by Mr. Vikas Singh, which have been set forth hereinabove in Paragraph 15, would not have a material bearing on the decision in this appeal, for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
159. The only issue in this appeal is, whether the change applicable in respect of interest charged by banks and financial institutions from the Prime Lending Rate to Base Rate and then to MCLR amounts to change in law in terms of the Power Purchase Agreement, and if so, whether there is any substantial question of law involved in this appeal, as argued by Mr. Singh, on behalf of the Appellant. It is not for this Court to reanalyze evidence adduced before the forums below or to sit in appeal over concurrent findings of facts.
160. There can be no doubt that a notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India constitutes law. A Reserve Bank of India notification which alters, modifies, cancels or replaces an earlier notification would 36 (1996) 6 SCC 166 tantamount to a change in law. However the notification relating to alteration of the lending rates chargeable by banks and financial institutions are not laws which relate to the Power Purchase Agreements in question, and therefore do not attract, as the case may be, Article 13 of the Stage 1 Agreements or Article 10 of the Stage 2 Agreements.
161. The RBI circulars/guidelines referred to above are admittedly instructions issued to banks and financial institutions and are not applicable to the Appellant or to the Respondent-Power Generating Companies, who are engaged in the business of production, sale/purchase and/or distribution of electricity and not of advancing loans. Moreover, SBAR as defined in the Power Purchase Agreements is admittedly not linked to any RBI guidelines or circulars. The guidelines/circulars are thus not relevant to the issues involved in this appeal.
162. As rightly argued by the counsels appearing for the Power Generating Companies, the RBI circulars/guidelines to banks, advising the banks to follow certain norms, while setting their benchmark reference rates for loans, and the amendments thereto, have no legal consequence on the contract between the parties. This has been correctly appreciated by both the forums below.
163. In B.O.I. Finance Limited v. Custodian and Ors. (supra) this Court held that the RBI Circulars/Instructions/Guidelines could not result in invalidation of a contract even between a bank and a third party and the consequence for violation is penalty as provided for in Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act. The RBI Circulars/Guidelines cannot therefore vary or modify a contract between two parties.
164. As pointed out by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent- Power Generating Companies and admitted on behalf of the Appellant, SBI has been notifying and continues to notify Prime Lending Rates for its loans. The Appellant itself has given the average PLR notified by SBI from 2010 till date in its application being I.A. No. 69796 of 2021. Therefore, Late Payment Surcharge as per the Power Purchase Agreement has been calculated at the rate of 2% in excess of the SBI notified Prime Lending Rate.
165. From paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment and order of the APTEL, it appears that the Appellant conceded before the APTEL that the SBI continues to issue the PLR rates till date. The relevant part of the impugned judgment and order is reproduced hereinbelow:- MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COM. LTD. v. MERC & ORC. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J. ] “….It is fairly conceded that SBI continues to issue the PLR rates till date…”
166. The definition of SBAR is clear and has been correctly applied by both the forums below. There are concurrent findings of fact that the SBI PLR (i.e. the benchmark reference rate mentioned in the PPA) is still being published and is available. The Court cannot, at this stage of a second appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act reopen the factual question of whether at all PLR rates were being notified by SBI for short term loans.
167. Therefore, as submitted on behalf of the Respondent-Power Generating Companies, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal filed under section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
168. As argued by Mr. Singhvi, Mr. Rohatgi and other Counsel, the definition of SBAR in the Power Purchase Agreements is clear. SBAR is the Prime Lending Rate per annum fixed by the State Bank of India (SBI) from time to time for loans with one year maturity. LPS is to be calculated at the rate of 2% in excess of the PLR for loans with 1 year maturity, as fixed from time to time by SBI. Moreover, the parties have consciously agreed that in the absence of such rate, the LPS rate shall be mutually agreed to by the Parties.
169. As argued by Mr. Rohatagi, Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Mukherjee, the purpose for which the Guidelines/Circulars have been issued by the Reserve Bank of India or their impact on the rates of interest on loans and advances, are not relevant to this appeal.
170. The provision in the Power Purchase Agreement, whereby the parties are to mutually agree on a rate of interest, in case there is no SBI Prime Lending Rate, in itself excludes the applicability of the general provision for Change in Law contained in Article 13 of the Power Purchase Agreement to Late Payment Surcharge.
171. In Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (supra), this Court found :- “38. In the present case, the perusal of various Articles would reveal that the provisions under Article 14 are general in nature. The provision under Article 3.4.2 is specific, only to be invoked in the case of non-compliance with any of the conditions as provided under Article 3.1.2…..”
172. The APTEL correctly found that:- “13…. On the contrary, there is a conscious exclusion regarding any suo moto change in the rate to be applied while calculating LPS, it being incorrect to argue on the assumption that the contract permits automatic change in system.”
173. This Court is unable to accept Mr. Singh’s submission that the conclusion of APTEL that LPS is not tariff is erroneous. The meaning of the expression tariff has to be considered, and has rightly been considered by APTEL in the context of the relevant provision of the Power Purchase Agreements. The dictionary meaning of tariff may be charge. However, in Article 13 of the Stage 1 and Article 10 of the Stage 2 Power Purchase Agreements, tariff means monthly tariff and tariff adjustment consequential to change in law, is of monthly tariff in respect of supply of electricity.
174. As argued by the Respondent- Power Generating Companies appearing through Mr. Rohatagi, Mr. Singhvi, Mr. Mukherjee and Ms. Anand respectively, LPS is only payable when payment against monthly bills is delayed and not otherwise.
175. The object of LPS is to enforce and/or encourage timely payment of charges by the procurer, i.e. the Appellant. In other words, LPS dissuades the procurer from delaying payment of charges. The rate of LPS has no bearing or impact on tariff. Changes in the basis of the rates of LPS do not affect the rate at which power was agreed to be sold and purchased under the Power Purchase Agreements. The principle of restitution under the Change in Law provisions of the Power Purchase Agreements are attracted in respect of tariff.
176. LPS cannot be equated with carrying cost or actual cost incurred for the supply of power. The Appellant has a contractual obligation to make timely payment of the invoices raised by the Power Generating Companies, subject, of course, to scrutiny and verification of the same. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi has a point that if the funding cost was so much lesser than the rate of LPS, as contended by the Appellant, the Appellant could have raised funds at a lower rate of interest, made timely payment of the invoices raised by the Power Generating Companies, and avoided LPS.
177. The proposition that Courts cannot rewrite a contract mutually executed between the parties, is well settled. The Court cannot, through MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COM. LTD. v. MERC & ORC. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J. ] its interpretative process, rewrite or create a new contract between the parties. The Court has to simply apply the terms and conditions of the agreement as agreed between the parties, as observed by this Court in Shree Ambica Medical Stores and Ors. v. Surat People’s Co- operative Bank (supra), cited by Ms. Divya Anand. This appeal is an attempt to renegotiate the terms of the PPA, as argued by Ms. Divya Anand as also other Counsel. It is well settled that Courts cannot substitute their own view of the presumed understanding of commercial terms by the parties, if the terms are explicitly expressed. The explicit terms of a contract are always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties, as held by this Court in Nabha Power Ltd. (NPL) vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (supra) cited by Ms. Anand.
178. There is substance in Ms. Anand’s argument that the Appellant is obliged to seek amendment of the provisions of the Power Purchase Agreement only in accordance with the agreed procedure for amendment of the terms thereof. The agreed rate of Late Payment Surcharge can only be amended in the absence of SBI PLR and that too with the mutual consent of the parties to the Power Purchase Agreement.
179. The argument that the Power Generating Companies are availing loans at a lesser rate of interest, but charging LPS on the basis of a higher rate of interest, leading to unjust enrichment, is untenable in law. LPS under the Power Purchase Agreements do not correspond to the actual interest paid by the Power Generating Companies for funds raised by them. The payment of Late Payment Surcharge LPS penalty suffered by the Procurer, that is, the Appellant, on account of default in timely payment.
180. As observed above, the Parties to the Power Purchase Agreements have mutually and consciously agreed to the incorporation of the PLR as notified by SBI from time to time, as the rate for levy of LPS. Therefore, by virtue of the doctrine of incorporation, the PLR as notified by SBI each year gets incorporated in the Power Purchasing Agreements, as binding between the parties. Thus, any other system notified by the Reserve Bank of India by its circulars has no bearing on the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement and cannot be deemed to be incorporated in the Power Purchase Agreement, except in case of mutual agreement between the parties, in the event of absence of SBI PLR, and approved by the MERC.
181. As argued by Ms. Anand, conceptually, PLR, Base Rate and MCLR are not comparable. The submission that the definition of SBAR should be read in the context of MCLR instead of PLR, is therefore not tenable. PLR is the internal benchmark rate for charging of interest on floating rate loans, calculated on the basis of average cost of funds and the loans were offered at a discount on their existing PLR. However, Base Rate is the lending rate calculated based on the total cost of funds of the banks and is the minimum interest rate at which a bank can lend, except for loans to its own employees, its retired employees and against bank’s own deposits. MCLR is a lending rate calculated on the cost of raising new funds for the bank which include the cost of maintaining CRR/SLR (Credit Reserve Ratio/Statutory Liquidity Ratio), operating costs of banks and tenor premium. MCLR is the lowest interest rate that a bank or lender can offer. Thus, loans are offered at a markup on the MCLR. Thus, the basis of both the rates are different and cannot be compared, as has been sought to be done by the Appellant. When PLR, Base Rate and MCLR are compared side by side. The difference is that very stark. Loans are advanced at a mark-up over Base Rate and MCLR, while during the PLR regime, loans were offered at a discount on PLR.
182. In any case, the Appellant cannot contend that the Reserve Bank of India circulars are to be considered as Change in Law, since Article 13.3.1 of the Stage 1 agreements corresponding to Article 10.4.1 of the Stage 2 agreements provides that notices of Change in Law events are to be issued by the affected party, as soon as reasonably practicable, after the affected party becomes aware of Change in Law event or when it should reasonably have known of the Change in Law.
183. In this case, the changes cited by the Appellant were effected by RBI from July 2010 and April 2016 and notified in advance. The Appellant issued notices of Change in Law as late as in September 2016, more than six years after the Reserve Bank of India introduced the base rate system in place of the BPLR system. Furthermore, while the guidelines on the base rate system were published on 9th April 2010 and introduced with effect from 01.07.2010, the Appellant entered into Power Purchase Agreements with the Respondent No. 2 on 9th August 2010 and on 16th February 2013 incorporating PLR as the Late Payment Surcharge rate for supply of contracted quantum of electricity to the Appellant. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COM. LTD. v. MERC & ORC. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J. ]
184. Significantly, the Appellant charges interest from its consumers for delay in payment @ 1.25% per month and/or in other words 15% per annum as per the MYT Regulations of MERC. This also shows that interest rate is not co-related to the actual interest rate on loans taken by the Appellant or by Power Generating Companies. According to the Respondent- Power Generating Companies, no other distribution licencee other than the Appellant has raised the claim of Change in Law. All other Distribution Licencees procuring electricity from producers of electricity pay LPS in accordance with the respective Power Purchase Agreements.
185. In Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Limited & Anr., O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No. 88/2020, decided on 29.05.2020 to which reference was made by Ms. Anand, the Delhi High Court aptly remarked that the outbreak of a pandemic cannot be used as an excuse for non-performance of a contract for which the deadlines were much before the outbreak itself. In the aforesaid case, the Delhi High Court rightly observed that the Court, while considering the plea of non performance of the condition due to outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, ought to examine factors such as the conduct of the parties prior to the outbreak.
186. Admittedly, the Appellant has landed itself in its present predicament, due to delay in making timely payments to the Respondent Power Generating Companies. There was no pandemic at the time of filing of the petition before the MERC in 2017 and the Appeal before the APTEL in 2018. It, cannot, therefore be said that the Appellant defaulted in payment of bills by reason of its financial predicament as a result of the outbreak of COVID 19 in India, which was in March 2020.
187. Extensive submissions have been made by Mr. Singh, to impress upon the Court, that the Appellant committed default in payment of the bills raised by the Power Generating Companies on account of various circumstances, beyond its control. The various circumstances mentioned by the Appellant, which allegedly impacted the financial position of the Appellant, have no bearing on the merits of the Appeal. Mr. Rohatgi, Mr. Singhvi, Mr. Mukerjee and Ms. Anand submitted in one voice that the delays in payment and/or non-payment of the invoices raised by the Power Generating Companies for the supply of power to the Appellant, had put the Respondent-Power Generating Companies under immense financial stress, as their source of revenue is from the sale and supply of power generated from their power plants. The Respondent Power Generating Companies cannot be burdened with the consequences of the Appellant’s defaults.
188. The judgment of this Court in M/s Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority (supra) cited by Mr. Singh is clearly distinguishable since this Court found that there had been no breach of contract by the Appellant (Para 44). Further, the Court did not accept the view of the Division Bench, that the fact that DDA had made a profit from re-auction was irrelevant, since compensation for breach of a contract can be given for damage or loss suffered. If no damage is suffered by reason of the breach, the law does not provide for a windfall.
189. In this case, the Appellant admittedly did not pay the bills raised by the Power Generating Companies within time. The Power Purchase Agreements provided for Late Payment Surcharge on the presumption that delayed payment of bills causes prejudice and loss to the seller whose bill remains outstanding. Accordingly, the Appellant also imposes delayed payment charges on its consumers, who pay their bills after the stipulated due date for payment of the bills at the rate of 1.5% per month and/or in other 18% per annum. LPS rate of 2% above the SBAR is neither unreasonably exorbitant nor arbitrary. It cannot be said that the LPS agreed upon is not a genuine pre estimate of damages.
190. The issues raised in this appeal are almost identical to the issues involved in Union of India v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India & Ors.37 where this Court was considering an identical interest clause in a contract which is reproduced hereinbelow: “In re: Levy of interest, penalty, and interest on penalty. Para 182. Levy of licence fee is provided in Clause 20.2. In case of any delay in payment of licence fee beyond the stipulated period would attract penalty at the rate, which would be 2% above the prime lending rate (PLR) of State Bank of India. As per Clauses 20.5 and 20.8, if the licensee does not pay the demand, consequences would follow. The clauses are extracted hereunder: “20.5. Any delay in payment of licence fee payable or any other dues payable under the Licence beyond the stipulated period will attract interest at a rate which will be 2% above 37 2020 (3) SCC 525 MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COM. LTD. v. MERC & ORC. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J. ] the prime lending rate (PLR) of State Bank of India existing as on the beginning of the financial year (namely 1st April) in respect of the licence fees pertaining to the said financial year. The interest shall be compounded monthly and a part of the month shall be reckoned as a full month for the purposes of calculation of interest. A month shall be reckoned as an English calendar month.” 191. In the aforesaid case, the licensee had contended that under Section 74 of the Contract Act, compensation has to be reasonable compensation. This Court after considering Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa38, Akbar Badrudin Giwani v. Collector of Customs39, Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh40, Tecumseh Products (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad41, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer42, Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority and Another43 and Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and Others44. This Court after considering the above- mentioned judgments of this Court cited on behalf of the licensee held that none of the decisions would come to the aid of the licensee. This Court held: “192….The ratio of the case, it is not attracted for the reason that in the instant matter, it is the contractual rate of interest and penalty agreed to which cannot be said to be arduous in any manner. The rate of interest has been agreed and particularly since it is a revenue sharing regime, and the licensees have acted in conscious disregards of their obligation. Thus on the anvil of the decision above also, they are liable to pay the dues with interest and penalty…… …… There is no such discretion available when the parties have agreed in default what amount is to be paid. It automatically follows that it is not to be determined by the licensor once over again. Parties (licensor and licensees) are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. There is 38 1969 (2) SCC 627 39 1990 (2) SCC 203 40 2003 (1) SCC 67 41 2004 (6) SCC 30 42 1994 (4) SCC 276 43 2015 (4) SCC 136 44 2002 (1) SCC 367 no enabling clause to vary either the rate of interest or the penalty provided therein and even if permissible, it is not called for to vary interest or penalty fixed under the agreement in the facts and circumstances of the case…… 197. It is not levy of penal interest which is involved in the instant case. Thus, based on the decision mentioned above, we find that when there is contractual stipulation, the interest can be levied and compounded” 192. It would perhaps be pertinent to note that stereotype Power Purchase Agreements containing identical terms and conditions are executed by the Appellant with different Power Generating Companies. It is patently obvious that the Power Generating Companies only agree to terms and conditions of an agreement prepared by the Appellant. It is difficult to accept that the Appellant should incorporate in their stereotype Power Purchase Agreements, a provision for payment of LPS at a rate 2% higher than the SBAR, in case of late payment of invoices/bills, without any pre estimation of the loss likely to be suffered by a Power Generating Company, by reason of non payment of bills in time, more so when the Late Payment Surcharge is linked to the rate of interest in respect of specific types of loan, charged by a leading nationalised bank with the largest numbers of branches spread all over the country including in mofussil and rural areas. 193. In any case, in this second appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act 2003, which is only to be heard on a substantial question of law, this Court would not embark upon the exercise of making a factual enquiry into the mode and manner in which the Power Generating Companies meet their working capital requirements and interest that individual Power Generating Companies pay to their lenders. 194. It is axiomatic that the Power Purchase Agreements provide for computation of Late Payment Surcharge in a particular manner to avoid the time consuming exercise of assessing the losses of individual Power Generating Companies by reason of late payment of their bills. The SBAR has been made the bench mark for computation of Late Payment Surcharge, irrespective of whether the Power Generating Companies are financed by the State Bank of India or any of its subsidiaries. The LPS provision is in the nature of a caution to arrange their affairs and finances keeping the upper limit of LPS of 2% above MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COM. LTD. v. MERC & ORC. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J. ] the SBAR in view, so that the Power Generating Company desists from borrowing at uneconomic rate of interest. 195. There being no dispute in the present case with regard to the principal sums due under the monthly bills, interest on delayed payment at 2% in excess of SBI PLR cannot be said to be arbitrarily high. There is no reason for this Court to reduce the contractual rate of interest and thereby alter or modify the contract between the parties, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 196. We need not go into the question whether or not the Appellant has funds to clear its interest liability. The Appellant cannot continue to get supply of electricity without having appropriate funds. Appellant would necessarily have to raise funds to clear its contractual obligations. 197. Even assuming that the burden of interest would have to be passed on to the consumers, that cannot be the ground for the Appellant to resile from its contractual commitment to the Power Generating Companies. The Appellant cannot pass on the burden for delay in making payment to the Power Generating Companies. In any case the claims as argued by Mr. Singhvi pertains to a period of three years before filing of the petition before the MERC on 2nd December, 2016 and therefore barred by limitation. 198. Reliance by the Appellant, upon the tariff regulations framed by MERC for determination of tariff for Power Generating Companies under Section 62 of the Electricity Act 2003, is untenable since the Tariff Regulations have no application in this case where PPAs have been executed pursuant to a bidding process, under Section 63 of the Electricity Act. 199. MERC, rightly rejected the claim of the Appellant by its order dated 16.11.2017, holding: “12 ……………………………… However, the LPS provision is attracted only when the payments are not made by MSEDCL against the Monthly Bills of the Seller within the time stipulated in the PPA’s. Any changes in the basis of the LPS rates, consequent to revisions by the RBI do not affect in any manner, the rates at which the power was agreed to be sold and purchased under the PPA’s and in the consequent financial implication for either party resulting in a liability to compensate the affected party “ 200. The APTEL, concurred with the finding of MERC and held:- “16. Having regard to the terms of the contract (PPA) as a whole, there is no doubt that provision for compensation to the affected party for a Change in Law event is essential with regard to tariff only. The rate of LPS has no bearing or impact on tariff. Any possible changes in the basis of the LPS rates consequent to revisions by the RBI, or for that matter, SBI would not affect the rate at which power was agreed to be sold and purchased under the PPAs and consequently there is no financial implications on expenditure or income for either Party. The LPS only recompenses what was lost in terms of real value of money due to delay in payment.” 201. The decision of this Court in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra), there were change in law claims for cost of imported coal, made by the Power Generating Company which were disputed by the distribution licensee on the ground that the bid submitted by the Generating Company was premised on imported coal. Since the principal claim was disputed by the distribution licensee in the first instance, the Generating Company could not raise any supplementary bills, for change in law compensation. 202. In this case, the bills, payment of which has been delayed, are energy bills, pertaining to energy supplied to the Appellant; and supplied further by the Appellant to its consumers against payment of retail tariff. Secondly, the energy bills in question, raised by the respondent Power Generating Companies have never been disputed by the Appellant, as noticed by the APTEL in the impugned judgment and order, the relevant part whereof is extracted hereunder:- “24. It is submitted by the contesting respondents (generators) that LPS liability of the appellant on account of defaults in timely payments for the period between 01.07.2010 and 31.03.2017 had crystallised and the dispute as to rate of LPS was raised to vex it further. It is not denied that the appellant had not disputed any of the Monthly Bills or Supplementary Bills as per the procedure prescribed under the PPA. This renders the demands to have become final and conclusive. The notice based on plea of CIL was issued in 2016, the issue having remained pending for five years, depriving the MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COM. LTD. v. MERC & ORC. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J. ] generators of the recompense for the loss suffered. Payment of LPS is triggered only when there is a default by MSEDCL. LPS is levied under the PPAs which were duly executed by MSEDCL. In these circumstances, it is inappropriate to project the outstanding liability towards LPS as an additional burden being placed upon MSEDCL..” 203. Mr. Singh’s challenge to the impugned judgment and order on the ground of the directions on the Appellant to make payment of the LPS found due and payable, within a stipulated date, is also not sustainable. 204. APTEL is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, as argued by Mr. Mukerjee. Directions for time bound payment within a prescribed time frame are in conformity with the judgment of this Court in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (supra) which has been upheld by this Court. Moreover, one of the objectives of the Electricity Act is time bound disposal of matters. This is evident from various provisions of the said Act including in particular Section 111(5) of the Act. Since APTEL and MERC are not bound by the procedure as laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, it was open to APTEL to pass such orders as would finally put an end to litigation. 205. It is now well settled by various decisions of this Court that an Electricity Regulatory Commission such as MERC constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 has all the trappings of a Court. The MERC is a substitute for a Civil Court in respect of all disputes between licensees and Power Generating Companies. This proposition finds support from the judgments of this Court in Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd. v. PPN Power Generating Co. Pvt. Ltd.45, Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee & Ors. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. & Others.46 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Kumar & Others47 cited by Mr. Vishrov Mukerjee. 206. As held by this Court in State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society and Others48, cited by Mr. Mukerjee, Courts have the power to execute their own order. The impugned judgment and order cannot, therefore, be faulted for giving directions for payment of the outstanding dues of the Appellant. 45 (2014) 11 SCC 53 46 (2016) 3 SCC 468 47 (2021) SCC OnLine 194 48 (2003) 2 SCC 412 (Paras 59-62) Moreover, State Regulatory Commissions exercise continuous regulatory supervision as affirmed by this Court in All India Power Engineering Federation & Ors. v. Sasan Power Limited & Others49, cited by Mr. Mukerjee. 207. MERC acted within the scope of its power of regulatory supervision in directing the Appellant to make payment of LPS within the time stipulated in the order of MERC. The APTEL rightly upheld the direction. In any case, such a direction cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers under Section 125 of the Electricity Act which corresponds to the power of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, since the sine qua non for entertaining an appeal is the existence of a substantial question of law. 208. After the the hearing of this appeal was concluded and the appeal was reserved for judgment, the Appellant filed an application to bring on record additional facts and documents in the form of queries under the Right to Information Act, 2005 made by one Alka Mehta to the State Bank of India and the responses thereto in an attempt to show that PLR would not apply to short term loans advanced by SBI after transition to the Base Rate/MCLR system. This Court cannot take note of any documents sought to be introduced after the conclusion of hearing. In any case, as observed above, this Court cannot in a second appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 interfere with concurrent factual findings arrived at by MERC and APTEL on the basis of facts admitted by the Appellant. The Appellant had been accepting the invoices raised by the Respondent–Power Generating companies and accounts had duly been reconciled by the Appellant. The LPS charged by the Respondent Power Generating Companies was never disputed. Further more, this Court cannot look into documents introduced for the first time in this second appeal, which were not tendered in evidence before the MERC or the APTEL. Even otherwise, queries made by one Alka Mehta, a rank outsider as late as on 12th July 2021 or replies thereto cannot be relied upon in evidence, by the Appellant. 209. For the reasons discussed above, we find no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned APTEL confirming the judgment and order passed by MERC. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9 (2017) 1 SCC 487 (Para 31) Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COM. LTD. v. MERC & ORC. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J. ]