Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that although the Petitioner had initiated the arbitral proceedings, in view of the fact that the EA was a complete code in itself in respect of matters pertaining to and connected with the supply of electricity, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enter into or entertain a dispute between a generating company and a trading licencee. Reliance was placed on the decisions in PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603, Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 2 SCC 108 and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 5 SCC 23. It was submitted that the invocation of the arbitration clause would not constitute estoppel or waiver to prevent the Petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision in Isabella Johnson v. M.A. Susai (1991) 1 SCC 494.