Search the Internet           Tips

Continued from previous page:

Information compiled by Enron Action group

Civil Suit No. 3392 0f 1995, filed by the State of Maharashtra Versus DPC and the MSEB, in the high court of judicature at Bombay. Ordinary civil jurisdiction.

12 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

GOM unconditionally and irrevocably:

13. Since then the Plaintiffs have received two notices from the 1^st Defendant as follows:

14. On 9.8.1995 the 1^st Defendant addressed a letter to the present Chief Minister of the Plaintiff which was responded to on 11.8.95 the Secretary, Energy, of the State Government. The Plaintiffs crave leave to refer to and rely upon the said letters dated 9.8.1995 and 11.8.1995 when produced.

15. In the circumstances, the Plaintiffs submit that as more particularly stated herein below, the documents mentioned in para 3 © herein (which as already mentioned were part of one entire transaction) - particularly PPA as well as other documents adjunct to PPA are in violation of statutory provisions including the ESA - were and are as such fraudulent in law and/or defeat the provision of law and are opposed to public policy. The said PPA and adjunct documents. viz. inter alia Government’s State Support Agreement and Guarantee are also illegal and void because there was active fraud and/or mis-representation on the part of the 1^st Defendant ( and its principal share-holders). The conduct of the 1^st Defendant has been vitiated by lack of bonafides is such as the Court would record as fraudulent in the circumstances of the case. The various acts and conduct which are deceptive and fraudulent and the grounds on which the contract is unlawful and void are also set out herein below.

B) The PPA has been procured by fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the 1^st Defendant. The 1^st Defendant has made the following misrepresentation or concealed the following relevant information from the 2^nd Defendant which ought to have been disclosed.

C) The PPA is contrary to the public policy of this country in as much as it will cause a huge loss to the public exchequer on the purchase and sale of power of place an unconscionable burden on the electricity consumers of the State. This is clear from the fact that the estimated costs of Dabhol power at the bus-bar (factory gate) of the plant is currently estimated by 1st Defendant to be Rs. 2.4 per KWH. This estimate is based on current exchange rate of $ against Rupee, current, cost of distillate which constitutes almost 50% of the total cost of DPC power. Apart from this there are several peculiar features of this PPA which will have a critical impact on the current as well as future cost of DPC power to the consumer and on the public ex-chequer. These are the following:

(a) cold and hot start fee which are quite high; and

(b) `take or pay’ clause regarding fuel under the contract which essentially obliges the 2nd Defendant to pay for the entire fuel which would have been consumed if the plant had been running at full capacity.

All this taken together would imply that under the PPA, the 2nd Defendant are obliged to purchase the electricity at almost full capacity of this plant. This means that during off-peak hours when the demand on the grid is less than even the present availability and even future estimated availability from other cheaper plants, the 2nd Defendant would be required to purchase power from the 1st Defendant, at a variable cost which is approximately 2 to 3 times the variable costs of other 2nd Defendant’s plants. These plants will be required to backed down in order to accommodate the supply from 1st Defendants plant in order to meet its coercive obligation to the 1st Defendant. This factor alone would add very significantly to the average cost of the 1st Defendant’s supply of power to the 2nd Defendant.

(iv) More than 95% of the payment to the 1st Defendant for electricity purchased by the 2nd Defendant under this contract will be in $ terms. Thus the presently estimated annual foreign exchange out-go for Phase I would be approximately 400 million $ and in excess of 1.2 billion $ for both Phases. This will go up every year. In fact, even the approval of the Government of India for this Project was only for a foreign exchange out-go of 950 million $ per year for both the Phases together and this was the figure given by the 1st Defendant to the Central Electricity Authority in its Project report on the basis of which the CEA has granted approval. However, the actual estimated forex outflow known to the 1st Defendant at the time of the approval of the CEA was in excess of 1.2 billion $ which was to go up year by year. These facts were concealed by 1st Defendant from the various authorities in seeking and getting approvals.

(v) that the PPA has various force majeure clauses and clauses relating to change in tax/change in law which not only insulate the 1st Defendant against changes in tax/law in future but also insulate the 1st Defendant’s profits against any unforeseen contingencies such as fire, earth-quake, strikes, lock-out, etc. which may affect the working of the plant. The adverse financial impact of all these above unforeseen events under the PPA are to be borne by the 2nd Defendant. Further the 2nd Defendant will be obliged to ensure that the 1st Defendant gets its profits and costs, on account of any change in law, change in tax. The cost of these contingencies which will be directly passed on to the 2nd Defendant should also be factored into cost of the 1st Defendant supply power.

(f) In order to arrive at the consumer cost of DPC power one has to further include the cost and interest of putting up the main transmission line from the 1st Defendant’s plant to the Grid, cost of augmenting the grid i.e. Transmission and Distribution (T & D) cost and the transmission and distribution line. The cost of mainlines to evacuate DPC power which is to be borne by the 2nd Defendant is estimated at over Rs. 300 crores. The impact of T&D loss and cost would be in addition.

(g) If all the above factors are included in the cost of the 1st Defendant’s power and a levelised cost is worked out for the 20 years operation of the contract, it will be found that the levelised cost of DPC power to the consumer is greatly in excess of the price of Rs. 2.40/kwh being quoted by the 1st Defendant. This cost would be more than twice the average current rate of the 2nd Defendant’s supply of power from various other power plants supplying power to the 2nd Defendant. In addition this will require a foreign exchange out-flow of almost Rs. 4000 crores annually (for phase I and II together) which would go on increasing with years on account of back-loading of capacity charges will increase by 4% per year in $ terms and on account of $ denomination of the charges which will also increase with the likely appreciation of $ against Rupee.

Another method of establishing the high cost of DPC power would be to examine the justification of 1st Defendant from time to time about their costs and returns.

I) The 1st Defendant assumes a total cost of 910 million $ for Phase I and about 2.82 billion $ for Phase I & II. Out of this, the debt equity ratio is 70:30 and about 85% of the debt is foreign debt. The rate of interest assumed on the foreign debt is approximately 10% and the Indian rate of interest on Indian debt is on actual interest rate. The internal rate of return of equity in $ terms was estimated by 1st Defendant (in justifying their tariff) to be approximately 26%. The average rate of return by 1st Defendant’s own calculations is in excess of 40%. In the first place the capital cost has been inflated as is clear from the arbitrarily varying figures of capital cost furnished by ENRON from time to time, the comparison with the capital cost of other power plants being set up in India, as well as the estimated cost of power plants calculated by various expert organizations such as Electric Power Research Institute, USA etc. It can safely be demonstrated that the capital cost given by ENRON to justify the tariff is at least 20% higher than the actual capital cost which they were likely to incur.

Apart from this, one major element in the capital cost is the cost of the Harbour. The PPA allows 1st Defendant to use the harbour for other customers in the country. This will also inflate their returns. Therefore, there is no justification for the entire cost of the harbour to be included in this Project cost.

ii) The interest rate assumed on a foreign debt which is the bulk of the debt for this Project is approximately 10%. In actual fact the weighted average rate of interest payable by ENRON for their loans for this Project is considerably less than 8%. This factor alone will increase the 1st Defendant’s internal rate of return considerably

iii) Apart from this there are various other costs which have been used to justify the capacity and energy charges in the PPA which are likely to be quite different from the actual cost incurred by the 1st Defendant. Thus the 1st Defendant are likely to get various other benefits such as availability bonus, higher efficiency of the plant, etc. All this will further increase the IRR substantially.

iv) It may also be pointed out that the capacity charge which is supposed to largely consist of debt servicing charges and return on equity is to go on increasing at 4% ($ terms) throughout the 20 years of the PPA even though the debt of the 1st Defendant would be fully paid up at the rate of capital repayment assumed within 12 years.

h) That this PPA is also contrary to public policy in as much as the Project is dependent upon imported fuel especially LNG, the supply of which is completely beyond the control of the 2nd Defendant or any State Agency. In fact, the supply of LNG is highly uncertain. Apart from this the owners of the 1st Defendant viz., ENRON is one of the main gas suppliers in the world and by such a contract as envisaged in the PPA, the 2nd Defendant would become totally dependent upon the 1st Defendant for the supply of fuel to the extent that they could easily manipulate its price That the principal shareholders of 1st Defendant were hoping to make huge profits on the supply of LNG for this plant is clear from their statement in their Annual Report of 1992 that "Enron’s Power strategy is to secure profitability through a making of secure long term fuel supply contacts with long term power sales agreements. The strategy results in a predictable growing earning stream. "Such an uncertain and risky arrangement for fuel supply, especially where the price could be manipulated by the 1st Defendant and where the risks of disruption in supply are entirely borne by the 2nd Defendant is also contrary to public policy.

I) That this Contract read with other subsidiary contracts and guarantees insulates the 1st Defendant’s profits from every contingency such as, change in law, change in tax, even income-tax as well as such contingencies like fire, earthquake, strikes, lockouts, which would in any way affect the functioning of the 1st Defendant’s Plant. For a state agency to assume the consequences of such normal business risks is of a private company is also contrary to public policy.

D) It is submitted that the manner in which the arbitration clause in the PPA was originally agreed to and subsequently amended also shows that the entire intention of the 1st Defendant was to get maximum advantage to itself and cause maximum harm to the 2nd Defendant, the Plaintiffs and public interest. For instance, in PPA initially the arbitration clause was to be governed by the Indian Law. Suddenly after 8th December 1994, the process of amendment of PPA inter alia of its arbitration, was expedited to make English Law applicable to the Arbitration in the PPA. Similarly, the clause in the State Support Agreement regarding Governing Law was strangely agreed to in such manner as to make English Law applicable not only to the arbitration but also to the construction of the Agreement. The Plaintiffs submit that both the parties to the said State Support Agreement are Indian parties, one of them being the State of Maharashtra and there is no cause whatsoever for the State of Maharashtra to agree to the application of English Law, particularly when, if at all any cause of action were to arise, such cause of action would arise entirely in India under the said Agreement. Under the said State Support Agreement, the State of Maharashtra has given up its sovereign powers which it has no authority to do and clearly the Agreement is unconstitutional and contrary to public policy. It is submitted that the provision under the State Support Agreement to be governed by English Law is not based on any valid or bonafide ground. In fact, opting for the application of English Law by Indian parties in respect of an Indian cause of action is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. Such a clause, without prejudice to the aforesaid, is in any event not enforceable. Providing for English Law would result in excluding the Government of Maharashtra, if at all such a clause is valid, from exercising its constitutional and statutory rights and would be clearly in contravention of public policy. The manner in which different governing laws and different arbitration clauses have been included in different agreements and amended from time to time, clearly shows that the whole object was to gain maximum advantage to the 1st Defendant and to deny the legitimate rights of the Plaintiffs. There is no nexus or connection with English Law and consequently there is no reason to stipulate the application of English Law particularly when both parties are Indian and more particularly so as one of the parties is an Indian State. Even under the doctrine of choice of law as a rule of Private International Law, it is not permissible for Indian parties to contract to stipulate in effect that a totally unrelated contract or a totally unrelated cause of action with a foreign law would still be governed by a foreign system of law even though that foreign system of law would have no action whatsoever with the cause of action of the parties.

E) It has now come out that the whole object of the 1st Defendant was to gain maximum advantage to itself by the said Project at the cost of the Indian public. It was inter alia decided by the said ENRON to divest 20% to 30% equity holding in 1st Defendant to one New Orleans based Company called Energy Court at a high premium straightway which would result in the said ENRON making a substantial profit. It further appears that not only was the said ENRON gaining by entering into the Fuel Management Agreement but the said ENRON had nearly 40% equity or had negotiated to buy 40% stake in the LNG Plant in Qatar which would ultimately supply the said LNG to the 1st Defendant, Thus indirectly also the said ENRON was intending to make huge profits. It is in these circumstances that the said ENRON is making desperate attempts some how to cling to the said contract and is resorting to all sorts of illegal steps including causing threats to be delivered to the Plaintiffs.

f) Thus the manner in which the transaction was entered into, the contents of the said transactions the manner in which it was closed and the manner in which now the said ENRON and the 1st Defendant are acting to see that some how it is executed clearly show that the transaction is void, illegal, inoperative, incapable of performance, unlawful, contrary to law, public policy and public interest.

G) The Plaintiffs submit that in large multinational contracts, there is usually competitive bidding and in the absence of competitive bidding where a contract is entered into by negotiations, there must be complete transparency in the transaction and if the record reveals that either the act of entering into the contract or its implementation had corrupt consideration, the contract must be struck down a contrary to public policy, that the entire transaction was conceived malafide is made clear inter alia from the fact that the said ENRON admitted before the US sub-committee on Foreign Operations that they had spent a huge sum of US$ 20 Million "on the education and project development process alone not including the project cost". thus what is euphemistically described as education expense is unexplained expenditure spent to some how obtain the said contract. the subsequent and attempted explanation given by the 1st Defendant is at complete variance with their statement made by Linda Power-Vice President, Global Finance for Enron Development Corporation. It is clear that while the statement made by Linda Power-Vice President, Global Finance for Enron Development Corporation. It is clear that while the statement was given by ENRON, the explanation is now sought to be given by the 1st Defendant and consequently ENRON has exposed itself to investigation under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

H) The Government of Maharashtra under the PPA was only required to guarantee due and proper performance of all payment, obligations of the 2nd Defendant under PPA. But the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee as per draft of the 1st Defendant which they go executed, contains specific indemnity providing that the Guarantor (State Govt. of Maharashtra) undertakes as primary obligor to indemnify and keep indemnified the 1st Defendant against any loss sustained or incurred by it for reason, inter-alia, of illegality of the Guarantee or even illegality of PPA. Thus, the 1st Defendant envisaged a distinct possibility of PPA being held illegal for corrupt, or fraudulent motives or having been obtained by misrepresentation on the part of 1st Defendant. This is itself indicative of important public policy consideration raised in this suit. Such an indemnity clause is clearly contrary to public policy.

16.(a) It is submitted that in the circumstances aforesaid, and in view of what is stated herein, the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee dated 10.2.1994 (Exhibit ‘C’ hereto), and the State Support Agreement dated 24.6.1994 (Exhibit ‘D’ hereto), along with the PPA dated 8.12.1993 (Exhibit ‘B’ hereto), are void, illegal and contrary to public policy and are not capable of being enforced either in arbitration or otherwise and the Plaintiffs are entitled to the declarations prayed for in that behalf herein and the reliefs of perpetual and/or permanent injunctions as stated herein.

b) The Plaintiff submit that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the transactions covered by the aforesaid documents are invalid and void, inter alia, on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a further declaration that in any event the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee dated 10.2.1994 (Exhibit ‘C’ hereto) and the State Support Agreement dated 24.6.1994 (Exhibit ‘d’ hereto) are per se violative of the provisions of the Constitution and/or law and/or are contrary to public policy and are as such, void.

c) The Plaintiffs submit that without prejudice to the aforesaid, they are entitled to a declaration that there was no waiver of Conditions Precedent as stipulated, inter alia, in clause 2 of the PPA as purported to be stated by the 1st Defendant in the letter dated 25.2.1995 (Exhibit ‘F’ hereto) of the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant and that in any even such purported waiver was not bonafide and was fraudulent and of no effect,. Assuming whilst denying that the purported waiver of the Conditions Precedent was valid and effective, the Plaintiffs submit that in any case other Conditions Precedent have not been waived and were not capable of being unilaterally waived.

d) The Plaintiffs submit that they are also entitled to a declaration that it was impermissible for the parties to the aforesaid transaction to enter into any arrangements or agreements after 8.12.1994 and/or 10.1.1995 and/or any date after 9/12.2.1995 by which time, the entire transaction, including the Power Purchase Agreement dated 8.12.1993, the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee dated 10.2.1994 and the State Support agreement dated 24.6.1994 were terminable at will without legal and financial consequences.

e) The Plaintiffs submit that in any event it is impermissible in law for Indian parties to apply or agree to application of foreign law where a contract or the fulfillment of a contract has no relation whatsoever with the foreign law or law of foreign countries. It is quite clear that the provisions in the State Support Agreement and in the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee that rights and obligations of the parties under the Guarantee and the State Support agreement will be governed and construed by the English law are contrary to Indian law and violative of public policy. It is impermissible for Indian parties to apply the law other than Indian law where neither the contract nor its performance are referable to a place other than India. The Plaintiffs further submit that the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act read with Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ,all arbitration between Indian parties in respect of contracts entered into in India and to be performed in India must be governed by law of arbitration in India and not under any alleged specified system of international law or systems of arbitration rule which are not law in force in India. Even the purported amendment of the arbitration clause by amendment of PPA on 2.2.1995 providing that an arbitration agreement would be governed by the place of arbitration stipulated as London is also contrary to law. The Plaintiffs submit that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that it was impermissible for the parties to the Power Purchase Agreement, as amended, the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee dated 10.2.1994 and the State Support Agreement dated 24.6.1994 to stipulate that the governing law of contract (in the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee and the State Support Agreement) and the governing law of arbitration in all the three Agreements would be English law and in any event, the relevant clauses of the aforesaid three Agreements, stipulating the application of the English law either to the contract and/or to arbitration are null void and of no legal effect.

(f) The Plaintiffs submit that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the contractual provision with respect to arbitration contained in the amended PPA, the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee and the State Support Agreement are contrary to Section 28 of the Contract Act and the Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and are null, void, illegal, inoperative and incapable of being performed and are null, void, illegal, inoperative and incapable of being performed.

17. In the circumstances aforesaid, the Plaintiffs submit that the Plaintiffs are entitled to orders of permanent and perpetual injunctions as prayed for herein:

a) The Plaintiffs submit that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order of permanent and perpetual injunction, restraining the 1st Defendant from in any manner acting upon or in pursuance of the transactions contained in the Power Purchase Agreement dated 8.12.1993, as amended, the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee dated 10.2.1994 and the State Support Agreement dated 24.6.1994, Exhibits ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively.

b) The Plaintiffs submit that without prejudice to the aforesaid and in any event, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order and permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from in any manner acting upon or in furtherance of or in pursuance of the purported letters/notices dated 4th August, 1995, 9th August, 1995 and 14th August, 1995, being Exhibits ‘J’. ‘K’ and L’ hereto.

c) In any event and without prejudice to the aforesaid, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue and order and permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from proceeding on the footing that there was a valid waiver of Conditions Precedent by the letter dated 25.2.1995 of the 1st Defendant being Exhibit ‘F’ hereto.

d) In any event and without prejudice to the aforesaid, this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to issue an order and permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from proceeding on the footing that all the unfulfilled Conditions Precedent contained in clause 2 of the PPA have been waived.

18. The Plaintiffs submit that the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit in respect of only some of the reliefs out of several reliefs to which the Petitioners are entitled to arising out of the documents set out in the Plaint. Further, the Petitioners intend to file the present suit for some reliefs in respect of only certain documents forming a part of the said transaction of Power Project as compendiously evidenced by several documents. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for setting aside and/or declaration as void of only certain letters/documents. The Plaintiffs crave leave of this Hon’ble court under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to omit to sue in respect of other reliefs arising out f the same transaction and to omit to sue in respect of documents other than the documents set out in the Plaint and forming part of the same transaction.

19. The Plaintiffs submit that the entire cause of action in the suit has arisen in Bombay. The Agreements have been entered into in Bombay. The various letters and/or documents in respect of which reliefs are claimed herein, have been received by the Plaintiffs and/or the 2nd Defendant in Bombay. The 1st and the 2nd Defendant have their registered offices at Bombay and carry on business in Bombay. In the circumstances, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

20. The claim in the suit far exceeds Rs. 15 lakhs and for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction the Plaintiffs have paid the maximum court fees of Rs. 15,00/- The amounts of contracts, agreements, guarantee and clams made by the 1st Defendant and challenged herein are far in excess of Rs. 15 lakhs and the Plaintiffs have paid the maximum Court Fees of Rs. 15,00/-

21. The Plaintiffs will rely upon documents a list whereof is hereto annexed.

22. Mr. Nazir Nizaamuddin Patel, who is the Deputy secretary of the Department of Energy of the Plaintiffs is aware of the facts of the case from the documents thereof and who is competent to depose to the contents of the Plaint has signed and declared the Plaint.

The Plaintiffs, therefore, pray:

a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the transactions covered by the aforesaid documents namely the Power Purchase Agreement dated 8.12.1993 (being Exhibit ‘B’ hereto), the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee dated 10.2.1994 (being Exhibit ‘C’ hereto) and the State Support Agreement (being Exhibit ‘D’ hereto) as well as the said documents are invalid and void, inter alia, on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the 1st ‘Defendant and violations of public policy:

b) That in any even this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee, dated 10.2.1994 (Exhibit ‘C’ hereto) and the State Support Agreement dated 24.6.1994(Exhibit ‘D’ hereto) are per se violative of the provisions of the Constitution and/or law and/or are contrary to public policy and are as such void;

c) Without prejudice to the aforesaid and in any event this Hon’ble court may be pleased to declare there was no waiver of Conditions Precedent as stipulated, inter alia, in clause 2 of the PPA as purported to be stated by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant and that in any event such purported waiver was not bonafide and was fraudulent and of no effect;

d) That without prejudice to the aforesaid and in any even this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that other Conditions Precedent have not been waived and were not capable of being unilaterally waived:

e) That this Hon’ble court may be pleased to declare that it was impermissible for the parties to the aforesaid transaction to enter into any arrangements or agreements after 8.12.1994 and/or into any arrangements or agreements after 8.12.1994 and/or 10.1.1995 and/or any date after 9/12.2.95 by which time, the entire transaction, including the Power Purchase Agreement dated 8.12.1993, the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee dated 10.2.1994 and the State Support Agreement dated 24.6.1994 were terminable at will without legal and financial consequences:

f) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that it was impermissible for the parties to the Power Purchase Agreement, as amended, the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee dated 10.2.1994 and the State Support Agreement dated 24.6.1994 to stipulate that the governing law of contract (in the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee and the State Support Agreements) and the governing law of arbitration in all the three Agreements would be English law any in any event, the relevant clauses of the aforesaid three Agreements, stipulating the application of English law, either to the contract and/or arbitration, are null, void and of no legal effect.

g) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the contractual provision with respect to arbitration contained in the amended PPA, the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee, the State Support Agreement are contrary to Section 28 of the Contract Act and Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and tare null, void, illegal, inoperative and incapable of being performed;

h) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order of permanent and perpetual injunction, restraining the 1st Defendant from in any manner acting upon or in pursuance of the transactions contained in the Power Purchase Agreement dated 8.12.1993, as amended, the Government of Maharashtra Guarantee dated 10.2.1994 and the State Support Agreement dated 24.6.1994.

I) The Plaintiffs submit that without prejudice to the aforesaid ad in any event, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order and permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from in any manner acting upon or in furtherance of or in pursuance of the purported laws/notices dated 4th August, 1995, August, 1995 and 14th August, 1995 Exhibits ‘J’, ‘K’ and ‘L’ respectively.

j) In any event and without prejudice to the aforesaid, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from proceeding on the footing that there was a valid waiver of Conditions Precedent by the letter dated 25.2.1995 of the 1st Defendant being Exhibit ‘F’ hereto;

k) For costs of the suit;

l) For such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

-- For the State of Maharashtra

Solemnly declared at Bombay this day of September, 1995.
Before me.
Associate/Asst. Master High Court, Bombay
For M/s. Desai & Diwanji
Partner
Advocates for the Plaintiffs.

Back to the interview

ALSO READ:

Maharastra moves to clean up electricity mess

'Dabhol tariff is not the highest': Neil McGregor, CEO of the DPC

US Ambassador Richard Celeste on the Enron controversy

Dabhol power to light up Maharashtra

Dabhol Power Company may export flowers, fruits

Dabhol Power Project opens, finally

Sucheta Dalal on power deals in India

Sucheta Dalal on the Enron fiasco

Sucheta Dalal on whether the govt has guts to act against DPC

EXTERNAL LINKS:

'Bankruptcy, not Enron, is the real issue'

A deserved downgrade for Maharashtra

Enron and Dabhol: A human rights perspective

Dabhol Power Project

Why the Swadeshi Jagran Manch opposes Dabhol project

MNC Masala: Dabhol story in a nutshell

Enron Intl announces financial closure of Phase-II of Dabhol project

Money

Interviews

Tell us what you think of this information