JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Facts, relevant for adjudication of this application, emerging from plaint are as under:- A. Plaintiff No.1 Rajpura Hydro Power Private Limited (‘RHPPL’ for short), a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Companies Act), engaged in development and construction of Hydro Energy Power Project at Nogli Khud, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as Hydro Power Project), whereas plaintiff No.2 Dolphin Energy Enterprises (‘DEE’ for short) is a Proprietorship concern and is the successful resolution applicant whose resolution plan for RHPPL has been approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’ for short) by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh (‘NCLT’ for short) vide its orders dated 27.9.2018. In pursuant thereto DEE has acquired the ownership, control and management of RHPPL. B. Defendant M/s Gangdari Hydro Power Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’) is also a company incorporated under Companies Act, which has set up a Hydro Electric Project, namely Jongni (SHP). C. RHPPL and defendant have entered into a Joint Evacuation Agreement dated 11.4.2013, for the purpose of pooling the power generated at their respective small hydro projects and evacuating power through a common Transmission Line. In the opening para of Joint Evacuation Agreement, status of plaintiff and defendant has been specifically mentioned as ‘Generating Companies’ within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short ‘the Act’). D. A dispute has arisen between the plaintiffs and defendant with reference to an amount claimed by defendant payable by plaintiffs, towards cost of construction of Transmission Line to be used jointly for evacuation of power and cost for operation and maintenance thereof, to be shared and borne by plaintiffs as agreed in terms and conditions of Joint Evacuation Agreement, whereupon defendant has sent a letter/Demand Notice dated 27.10.2020 to plaintiff No. 1 RHPPL, asking for payment of `6.48 crores and interest thereon from plaintiffs, with threat of termination of Joint Evacuation Agreement, if amount is not paid. E. On 12.4.2017, Seashell Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (‘Seashell’ for short), i.e. a Financial Creditor of RHPPL, had preferred an application under Section 7 of Code, before Adjudicating Authority, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIR Process’ for short) against RHPPL. E. On 12.4.2017, Seashell Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (‘Seashell’ for short), i.e. a Financial Creditor of RHPPL, had preferred an application under Section 7 of Code, before Adjudicating Authority, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIR Process’ for short) against RHPPL. F. On 11.7.2017, the NCLT initiated CIR Process against RHPPL and Resolution Professional was appointed, who had issued a public announcement for submission of claim(s), in terms of provisions of Code. As per plaint, despite having knowledge of CIR Process, defendant did not submit any claim before the Resolution Professional. Thereafter, DEE had submitted the resolution plan in respect of RHPPL, which was approved by NCTL, vide order dated 27.9.2018, under the Code and on such approval, the approved resolution plan became binding to all stakeholders, including defendant, and since then, the approved resolution plan has been implemented and RHPPL (plaintiff No. 1) has been duly acquired by DEE (plaintiff No.2). It is claim of the plaintiff that liability to pay the amount, which is being claimed by defendant on the basis of Joint Evacuation Agreement, is not part of approved resolution plan and, therefore, defendant has lost its right to claim the said amount. G. As per plaintiffs, Demand Notice, dated 27.10.2020, issued by defendant raising claims for an amount of `6,48 crores for a period prior to CIR Process with threat to terminate the Joint Evacuation Agreement on failure of payment, has constrained them to file present suit, for passing an injunction prohibiting the defendant from terminating the Joint Evacuation Agreement and for specific performance thereof. 2. After service, defendant has preferred to file this application for rejecting the paint, in terms of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short). 3. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the Act provides a complete mechanism for determination of disputes, which are necessarily and compulsorily to be decided under the provisions of the Act (Electricity Act) and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or any other Court or authority, except as provided under this Act, is specifically ousted. 3. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the Act provides a complete mechanism for determination of disputes, which are necessarily and compulsorily to be decided under the provisions of the Act (Electricity Act) and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or any other Court or authority, except as provided under this Act, is specifically ousted. Further that, both, i.e. plaintiff(s) and the defendant, are generating companies, within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Act and dispute between the parties is a dispute between two generating companies with respect to Dedicated Transmission Line, as defined under Section 2(16) of the Act, and Section 86 of this Act provides functions of the State Commission under the Act, wherein Section 86(1)(f) specifically provides that State Commission shall discharge the functions ‘to adjudicate upon the dispute between the Licencees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration’. An appeal has been provided under Section 111 to Appellate Tribunal against and order made by Adjudicating Officer or Appropriate Commission under the Act, except an order passed under Section 127 of the Act, and further, Section 125 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court for duly explained sufficient cause, may also condone delay in filing appeal. 4. It is contended on behalf of defendant that present case is covered under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, which provides for rejection of plaint in case the suit appears from the statement of plaint to be barred by any law, and present suit is barred for provisions under Section 86(1)(f) read with Section 174 of the Act. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that in view of Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’), Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all matters unless specifically ousted by any special law and in present case jurisdiction of Civil Court has not been ousted either expressly or impliedly and further that in case of ouster of jurisdiction, alternative remedy must be sufficient and adequate, which is not available in present case. 6. 6. In the reply, filed to this application, it is contended on behalf of plaintiffs that the Act does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit as remedy prescribed under the Act is not sufficient or adequate in comparison to remedy sought to be availed by the plaintiffs before this Court as the State Commission neither has jurisdiction nor power to grant relief, which has been sought in the main suit from this Court. It is further submitted that a suit for specific performance, like the present one, would require detailed determination of issues and may even require expert evidence for determining validity or the basis of the claim made by the defendant and complicate issues involved in the present case cannot be decided in summary proceedings as contemplated to be conducted before State Commission, as the State Commission has no power to grant relief of specific performance which would require extensive evidence for determination, which would be feasible only in a Civil Suit before a Civil Court. Further that, State Commission being statutory body, established under the Act, shall be bound by the provisions of the Act and cannot act beyond the provisions of the said Act and scope and ambit of the powers conferred upon the State Commission under provisions of Section 86 of the Act are very narrow, as the dispute under Section 86(1)(f) refers to only those disputes which arise in the context of regulation and determination of tariff between the generating and licencee companies and not amongst the generating companies themselves and the same, at any stretch of imagination, cannot mean to include any dispute between the generating companies. Further that, none of the claims of the plaintiffs, in the present suit, relate to regulation of tariff or concern any other activities which can be regulated by the State Commission, rather present dispute is purely commercial and contractual in nature between two parties, in their capacity as joint owners of Joint Evacuation Line, which is not amenable to provisions of the Act. 7. 7. It is further submitted on behalf of plaintiffs that in view of provisions of Section 238 of the Code, wherein provisions of the Code have been given overriding effect on any other law or instrument having effect by virtue of any such law coupled with the fact that defendant has not put forth its claim in CIR Process as provided under the Code, and for finality of CIR Process under the Code, and, thereupon, approval of resolution plan under Section 31(1) of Code, dispute cannot be raised before the State Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act as provided under the Code, particularly under Section 31(1) of the Code. 8. It is also contended that as per provisions of Section 145 of the Act, bar to jurisdiction of Civil Court is only with respect to matters referred to in Section 126 and Section 127 or the Adjudicating Officer appointed under the said Act to determine, but not to any other matter and as present dispute is not referable to any kind of such proceedings, regarding which bar has been created against the jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 145 of the Act, present Civil Suit is not barred by the Act. 9. It is also contended on behalf of plaintiffs that keeping in view the object of the Act, scope of proceeding under the Act are very limited, as establishment of Regulatory Commission therein is with reference to object thereof and thus Commissions, under the Act, have been entrusted with power and duty of determination of tariff etc. and the State Commission being one of the authority established under the Act is competent to adjudicate those disputes only which pertain to the matters concerning the object of the Act and dispute in suit is beyond the scope of that, and further that the State commission would not be pre-disposed or well equipped to handle the dispute of purely commercial nature, which requires detailed adjudication. 10. 10. Referring provision of Section 86 of the Act, it is advocated on behalf of plaintiffs that jurisdiction of State Commission is limited to the issue related to determination of tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity, regulate electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees, facilitate intra-state transmission and wheeling of electricity, issue license, promote co-generation and generation of electricity, levy fee, specify Grid Code, fix trading margin and discharge such other functions as may be assigned to it under the Act and phrase ‘dispute’ in Section 86(1)(f) of the Act cannot be interpreted to include ‘any dispute’ under the sun but only those which resonate with the object of the Act, whereas a suit for specific performance, such as the present one, would require detailed determination of issues and may even require production of expert evidence to determine the validity or the basis of the claim made by defendant. 11. It is also contended for plaintiffs that under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act, State Commission shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between a Generating Company and a licensee only, whereas in present case none of the entities is licensee and on this count also State Commission shall not have jurisdiction. 12. It is case of the plaintiffs that status of the defendant is of creditor as defined under 2(10) of the Code and in view of Section 31(1) of the Code, approved resolution plan is binding on a creditor and as the approved resolution plan contemplates that plaintiff No. 1 has been acquired by plaintiff No. 2 without any past liabilities, the defendant cannot burden the successful resolution applicant i.e. plaintiff No. 2 with any past liability and, therefore, claim of the defendant is not maintainable and demand thereof by the defendant certainly creates a cause of action to the plaintiffs for seeking specific performance, as prayed in the present suit. 13. 13. In response to the plea taken by the plaintiffs, it is argued on behalf of defendant that defendant is not claiming the amount as a creditor, but is claiming the share of cost of construction of joint evacuation ‘Transmission Line’ constructed by defendant, as agreed upon by the plaintiffs to be paid for pooling power generation, in terms of Joint Evacuation Agreement, and the said amount is an amount arising out of the agreement entered between the parties for evacuating power and for non-payment thereof plaintiffs will not be entitled to use Transmission Line, and thus it is a contractual liability of the plaintiffs and further that plaintiffs are claiming right to use transmission line, but refusing to share construction cost as well as operation and maintenance charges thereof which is to be reimbursed by plaintiffs in furtherance to the Joint Evacuation Agreement for Transmission of electricity for using common ‘Transmission Line’. 14. It has been contended on behalf of defendant that Electricity Regulatory Commission has all trappings of civil Court and can decide all disputes including the contractual ones and these Commissions have been elevated to status of substitute of civil court for deciding all the disputes, including contractual disputes between Generating Companies inter se, licensees inter se or amongst them. 15. It is contended that keeping in view the scheme of the Act, reference of Section 145 of the Act is irrelevant to the present case, as it has to be governed under Section 86(1)(f) read with Sections 174 and 175 of the Act, conjoint reading whereof clearly indicates that jurisdiction of any other Court or tribunal other than State Commission is excluded expressly and if not expressly, by way of necessary implication as Section 86(1)(f) of the Act shall have overriding effect to Section 9 of CPC being in conflict with Section 86(1)(f) of the Act. 16. In support of submission made on behalf of defendant following judgments have been referred:- (a) Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Essar Power Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 755 ; (b) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Vs. PPN Power Generating Company Private Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 53 ; (c) Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee and others Vs. Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 468 (d) State of Gujarat and others Vs. Essar Power Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 755 ; (b) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Vs. PPN Power Generating Company Private Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 53 ; (c) Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee and others Vs. Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 468 (d) State of Gujarat and others Vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association and others, (2018) 6 SCC 21 , (e) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd. and others, 2016 (162) AIC 301; (f) Chairman and Managing Director Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Tirupati and others Vs. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mr.S. Jayaram Chowdary, 2013 AIR (A.P.) 1; (g) Judgment dated 7.8.2018 passed by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi in Appeal No. 77 of 2015, dated 7.8.2018, titled as Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission. (h) Judgment dated 23.2.2011 passed by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity New Delhi in Appeal No.200 of 2009, titled Pune Power Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission; and (i) Judgment dated 2.1.2013, decided by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi in Appeal No. 81 of 2011, titled Allian Duhagaon Hydro Power Vs. Everest Power Pvt. Ltd. 17. In support of plea of plaintiffs that the provisions of the Code shall prevail over any other law, pronouncements of the Apex Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 407 and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd., (2018) 18 SCC 786 have been referred . There is no dispute with respect to ratio propounded in these judgments. However, issue doubting the overriding effect of provisions of the Code has been raised by either party. Dispute in issue herein is regarding status or nature of relation of parties with respect to cost of construction and user of Transmission Line. Whether plaintiffs and defendant are debtor and creditor, or co-owners, or partners, or co-users, or parties in contract, or something else in relation to cost of construction and user of Transmission Line, is the issue to be decided to resolve the dispute and result thereof would decide as to whether demand of defendant is barred under the Code or not. The Code does not restrict, bar or prohibit adjudication of such dispute in collateral or other proceedings even after approval of resolution plan by NC LT. The Code does not restrict, bar or prohibit adjudication of such dispute in collateral or other proceedings even after approval of resolution plan by NC LT. Hence these judgments, which would be relevant after determination of status/nature of relation of parties, are not necessary to be discussed. 18. Learned counsel for plaintiffs has referred pronouncements of the Apex Court in Kamla Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bombay (1966) 1 SCR 64 ; Dhulabhai & others Vs. State of M.P. & Another (1968) 3 SCR 662 =AIR 1969 SC 68; Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple Vs. Induru Pattabhirami Reddi, AIR 1967 SC 781 and Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and others (2005) 10 SCC 760 with respect to principles propounded by the Apex Court for ousting civil court jurisdiction. 19. Referring Kamala Mills case supra, it is submitted on behalf of plaintiffs that in cases where exclusion is pleaded as a matter of necessary implication, the consideration as to scheme of statute in question and adequacy or the sufficiency of remedies provided for by it would be very important, and in conceivable circumstances, might even become decisive, however where exclusion of civil courts’ jurisdiction is expressly provided such consideration may be relevant but cannot be decisive. 20. In Dhulabhai’s case the view expressed by the Apex Court in various pronouncements in past has been summarized as under:- “35. Neither of the two cases of Firm of Illuri Subayya, 1964-1 SCR 752 = ( AIR 1964 SC 322 ) or Kamla Mills, 1966 1 SCR 64 = ( AIR 1965 SC 1942 ) can be said to run counter to the series of cases earlier noticed. The result of this inquiry into the diverse views expressed in this Court may be stated as follows: (1) Where the statute gives finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies. (6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.” 21. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.” 21. In Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple’ case it is re-iterated by the Supreme Court that under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred and that it is settled principle that a party seeking to oust jurisdiction of an ordinary civil court shall establish the right to do so. In Church of India’s case principles, summarized for exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court in Dhulabhai’s case, have been re-iterated by the Supreme Court. 22. So far as principles, propounded in aforesaid judgments referred on behalf of plaintiffs, are concerned, there is no dispute, however, in present case for discussion herein after, I am of the considered view that jurisdiction of Civil Court has been excluded, if not expressly, by implication of provision of Section 86(1)(f) read with Section 174 of the Act. 23. Pronouncement of the Apex Court in Tata Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. (2009) 16 SCC 659 , has been referred to substantiate the plea of limited scope and object of enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003. In my view observations made by the Supreme Court are with reference to and confined to the issue involved in that case which are not exhaustive but limited one and are not applicable in context of present case. 24. Judgments in M/s Shree Shiv Sai Steel Industries Vs. Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and others (2017) 5 Gauhari Law Reports 103; Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & others Vs. Guru Nanak Agricultural Engineering Works & Others, 2006 SCC Online P&H 1617; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others Vs. Smt. Santosh Devi 2014 SCC Online P&H 11736 and Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar, (2008) 106 DRJ 272 have been referred on behalf of plaintiffs to substantiate the plea that Section 145 of the Act does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matters like present one. Smt. Santosh Devi 2014 SCC Online P&H 11736 and Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar, (2008) 106 DRJ 272 have been referred on behalf of plaintiffs to substantiate the plea that Section 145 of the Act does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matters like present one. Finding of this Court, rendered hereinafter, that jurisdiction of Civil Court, in present case, stands excluded, is based on provisions of Section 86(1)(f) and Section 174 of the Act, but not for Section 145 of the Act, therefore, these judgments are not necessary to be discussed. 25. Pronouncements in Velagapudi Power Generation Ltd. Vs. Southern Power Generation Company of Andhra Pradesh and others (2010) APTEL 31, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755 ; Power Exchange India Ltd. Vs. Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. & others, 2009 SCC Online CERC 248; V. Srinivasan Vs. The Secretary Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. and others, 2013, SCC Online Mad 1074; Hassan Thermal Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka 2019 SCC Online Kar 3103; Hassan Thermal Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Power Transmissions Corporation Ltd. and another, SLP (Civil) No. 6433-6434 of 2020; Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (HZL) Vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2019) 17 SCC 82; Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and others, 2020 (6)SCC 557 ; Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Swwapnil Bhingardevay and others, 2020 (9) SCC 729 ; Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & others, 2020 (8) SCC 531 , have also been relied upon on behalf of plaintiffs, which I do not find relevant to be discussed for findings returned hereinafter. 26. Relevant extract, of Sections 79, 86(1)(f), 145, 174 and 175 of the Act, necessary to be referred for adjudication of matter, reads as under:- “79(1) The Central Commission shall discharge the following functions, namely:-- …. …. …. (f) to adjudicate upon disputes involving generating companies or transmission licensee in regard to matters connected with clauses (a) to (d) above and to refer any dispute for arbitration. …. …. … 86 (1) The State Commission shall discharge the following functions, namely:-- … …. … (f) adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration. …. …. … 145. Civil court not to have jurisdiction. …. …. … 86 (1) The State Commission shall discharge the following functions, namely:-- … …. … (f) adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration. …. …. … 145. Civil court not to have jurisdiction. No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. … … … 174. Act to have overriding effect. Save as otherwise provided in section 173, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 175. Provisions of this Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of other laws. The provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.” 27. The Apex Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam’s case has held as under:- “34. Section 174 provides that the Electricity Act, 2003 will prevail over anything inconsistent in any other law. In our opinion the inconsistency may be express or implied. Since Section 86(1)(f) is a special provision for adjudicating disputes between licensees and generating companies, in our opinion by implication Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will not apply to such disputes i.e. disputes between licensees and generating companies. This is because of the principle that the special law overrides the general law. For adjudication of disputes between the licensees and generating companies there is a special law namely 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence the general law in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will not apply to such disputes. 35. This is because of the principle that the special law overrides the general law. For adjudication of disputes between the licensees and generating companies there is a special law namely 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence the general law in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will not apply to such disputes. 35. It is well settled that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, and in no other manner, vide Chandra Kishore Jha V/s. Mahavir Prasad, AIR 1999 SC 3558 (para 12), Dhananjaya Reddy V/s. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512 (para 22), etc. Section 86(1)(f) provides a special manner of making references to an arbitrator in disputes between a licensee and a generating company. Hence by implication all other methods are barred. … … … 60. In the present case, it is true that there is a provision for arbitration in the agreement between the parties dtd. 30.5.1996. Had the Electricity Act, 2003 not been enacted, there could be no doubt that the arbitration would have to be done in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, since the Electricity Act, 2003 has come into force w.e.f. 10.6.2003, after this date all adjudication of disputes between licensees and generating companies can only be done by the State Commission or the arbitrator (or arbitrators) appointed by it. After 10.6.2003 there can be no adjudication of dispute between licensees and generating companies by anyone other than the State Commission or the arbitrator (or arbitrators) nominated by it. We further clarify that all disputes, and not merely those pertaining to matters referred to in clauses (a) to (e) and (g) to (k) in Section 86(1), between the licensee and generating companies can only be resolved by the Commission or an arbitrator appointed by it. This is because there is no restriction in Section 86(1)(f) about the nature of the dispute. 61. We make it clear that it is only with regard to the authority which can adjudicate or arbitrate disputes that the Electricity Act, 2003 will prevail over Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This is because there is no restriction in Section 86(1)(f) about the nature of the dispute. 61. We make it clear that it is only with regard to the authority which can adjudicate or arbitrate disputes that the Electricity Act, 2003 will prevail over Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, as regards, the procedure to be followed by the State Commission (or the arbitrator nominated by it) and other matters related to arbitration (other than appointment of the arbitrator) the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will apply (except if there is a conflicting provision in the Act of 2003). In other words, Section 86(1)(f) is only restricted to the authority which is to adjudicate or arbitrate between licensees and generating companies. Procedural and other matters relating to such proceedings will of course be governed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless there is a conflicting provision in the Act of 2003.” 28. It is true that vide Section 145 of the Act, jurisdiction of civil Court has been barred in certain matters but present matter is not covered under that Section. Section 145 of the Act has its limited application with respect to Sections 126 and 127 of the Act and determination by Adjudicating officer appointed under this Act. Power to adjudicate for the purposes of the Act has been provided under Section 143 of the Act and therefore, this Section is to be read with reference to and in context with chapters containing in Sections 126, 127 and 143 only whereas Section 86(1)(f) of the Act provides a different complete mechanism to adjudicate upon ‘the dispute between licensees and Generating Companies’ in a particular manner as it provides not only adjudication by Commission, but also mandates statutory Arbitration if required as held in Gujarat Vikas Nigam’s case by the Supreme Court. 29. From the object of the Act, it is evident that this Act has been enacted to consolidate laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity, which includes the transmission of electricity also and transmission of electricity could be through transmission lines only and the Act also defines dedicated transmission lines as an electric supply line for point to point transmission required for purpose of connecting electric line or electric plants or a captive generating plant or sub-stations or generating stations or the load centre. Thus the Act also deals with transmission of electricity and dedicated transmission lines. In present case issues with respect to cost of construction of dedicated transmission line, operation and maintenance charges thereof as well as its user are directly involved. 30. Section 86(1)(f) of the Act deals with dispute between the licensees and Generating Companies. Endorsing the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi in Pune Power Development and Allian Duhangan Hydro Power cases, for the language of this sub-section, I am of the considered view that jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between two licensees or between two generating companies or between licensee(s) and generating Company(ies) lies with State Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act. 31. So far as status of plaintiffs is concerned, the same is of generating company, not for only mention of such status in opening para of Joint Evacuation Agreement filed by the plaintiffs along with plaint, but also for the definition of Generating Companies, as contained in Section 2(28) read with Section 2(29) and 2(30) of the Act. Therefore, present dispute is between two generating companies, which is covered by Section 86(1)(f) of the Act. 32. Jurisdiction and power of State Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act to adjudicate upon dispute between licensee and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration, is not confined to adjudicate the dispute related to functions mentioned in other clauses of Section 86(1) only, but the State Commission has been empowered to adjudicate upon any issue related to subject matter of the Act. Intention of the legislature can be gathered from Section 79 of the Act, wherein functions, which Central Commission shall discharge, have been described. In Section 79(1)(f) of the Act jurisdiction and power of Central Commission has been confined to adjudicate upon dispute involving generating companies or transmission licensees in regard to matters connected with clauses (a) to (d) of the this Section and to refer any dispute for arbitration. Intention of the legislature is clear that Central Commission has been empowered to adjudicate upon the dispute related to Section 79(1)(a) to 79(1)(d) only and no other dispute, whereas in Section 86(1)(f), there is no such impediment to adjudication of dispute by State Commission. Intention of the legislature is clear that Central Commission has been empowered to adjudicate upon the dispute related to Section 79(1)(a) to 79(1)(d) only and no other dispute, whereas in Section 86(1)(f), there is no such impediment to adjudication of dispute by State Commission. Therefore, jurisdiction and power of State Commission to adjudicate upon the disputes under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act is not limited to the issues related to determination of tariff only, but the State Commission is empowered to adjudicate upon any issue, subject matter whereof is within the purview of the Act. As noticed supra, object of enacting the Act includes consolidation of the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity. Therefore, an issue with respect to right to use Transmission Line by a generating company jointly with another generating company, on the basis of Joint Evacuation Agreement, definitely falls within the ambit and scope of Section 86(1)(f) of the Act. For adjudicating upon the dispute in present case i.e. whether plaintiffs are entitled to use Transmission Line without paying the liability accrued on the basis of Joint Evacuation Agreement for approval of resolution plan, or defendant has a right to prohibit/restrain the plaintiffs from using the Transmission Line for non-payment of costs as claimed, can be adjudicated upon on the basis of documents only, for which no expert evidence may be necessary. Otherwise also such issues can be adjudicated upon effectively and efficaciously in arbitration also. Adjudication of dispute of commercial nature or contractual nature is undoubtedly possible in arbitration wherein parties may also lead evidence in support of their respective claims. Therefore, plea raised on behalf of plaintiffs that State Commission has neither jurisdiction nor power nor expertise to adjudicate upon the dispute, is not tenable. 33. Scheme of the Act provides forum for adjudication of dispute between generating companies under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act and appeal thereof has been provided under Section 111 to Appellate Tribunal to be constituted under the Chairmanship of Judge of Supreme Court or Chief Justice of High court and further appeal under Section 125 to Supreme Court, has been provided against any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal on any one or more of the grounds stipulated in Section 100 of the CPC. A complete mechanism for adjudicating dispute has been provided under the Act, wherein statute gives finality to the order of the State Commission in the manner prescribed under the Act. 34. Section 86(1)(f) of the Act provides remedy of adjudication of dispute by State Commission. It also provides that dispute can be referred for arbitration, meaning thereby State Commission either itself has to adjudicate upon the dispute or to refer it for arbitration, as explained by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam’s case. Therefore, Act provides a resolution of dispute either by the State Commission or through arbitration and no other mode and manner has been prescribed therein. In case of adjudication by State Commission itself, decision shall attain finality before Appellate Tribunal or the Supreme Court as provided under Sections 111 and 125 of the Act. In case of reference for arbitration, as observed by the Apex Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam’s case, except Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act), all other provisions of the Arbitration Act shall be applicable for arbitration in a case referred under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act. Therefore, in case of reference of dispute for arbitration a complete mechanism under Arbitration Act is provided. 35. So far as availability of efficacious and effective remedy is concerned, in no uncertain terms, it is settled now that resolution of dispute through arbitration is a well recognized efficacious and speedy forum and thus normally, parties, instead of relegating themselves to lengthy procedure of CPC, are always interested to resolve the dispute through arbitration. 36. Effective and efficacious remedy has been provided under the scheme of the Act. Section 174 of the Act provides overriding effect of provision of any Act notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Provision of Section 9 of CPC is also a provision of other law in force for the time being, which provides that the civil courts will have jurisdiction to all suits of civil nature except those expressly or impliedly barred. As a matter of fact under the Act a statutory provision under Section 86(1)(f), has been provided with mandate that dispute between licensees and Generating Companies shall be adjudicated upon either by the State Commission itself or through arbitration on reference of the dispute by State Commission for arbitration. As a matter of fact under the Act a statutory provision under Section 86(1)(f), has been provided with mandate that dispute between licensees and Generating Companies shall be adjudicated upon either by the State Commission itself or through arbitration on reference of the dispute by State Commission for arbitration. Therefore, by way of compulsion, on account of statutory provision, dispute is to be resolved in the manner prescribed under the Act, either by State Commission or through Arbitration. Therefore, any provision of other enactment repugnant thereto shall have to give way to the provision of the Act and, therefore, there is implied bar for filing a civil suit to adjudicate the matter under the Act and thus civil suit shall not be maintainable in a dispute like present one. 37. By incorporation of provision to refer the dispute between licensees and Generating Companies for arbitration, jurisdiction of civil court has been ousted, not only impliedly, but also expressly, as after introduction of arbitration clause, jurisdiction of civil court is barred. 38. Dispute between the parties herein is that defendant is raising demand for an amount against cost of construction and operation and maintenance charges of dedicated transmission line as agreed in Joint Evacuation Agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant for using the said transmission line jointly, whereas plaintiffs are denying any liability to pay, accrued in past prior to approval of resolution plan under the Code, for not presenting the said claim before the resolution professional during CRI Process. It is claim of the plaintiffs that such claim has been extinguished for non presentation before the resolution professional, as provided under the Code, because according to plaintiffs status of defendant is creditor under the Code, whereas defendant’s claim is that it is cost of construction and operation and maintenance of Transmission Line and payment thereof is a precondition for user of Transmission Line by plaintiffs in terms of Joint Evacuation Agreement. According to defendant, it is not a debt and defendant is not a creditor, but plaintiffs would be a co-owner or co-user of Transmission Line on payment of cost of construction, but for failure of payment of cost of construction, plaintiffs shall have no right to use the said Transmission Line. According to defendant, it is not a debt and defendant is not a creditor, but plaintiffs would be a co-owner or co-user of Transmission Line on payment of cost of construction, but for failure of payment of cost of construction, plaintiffs shall have no right to use the said Transmission Line. Whereas plaintiffs are claiming for mandate of specific performance in their favour on the basis of Joint Evacuation Agreement, but without performing their part agreed to be performed in the said agreement. All these issues are legal, commercial and contractual, which can be decided on the basis of documents only in the light of provisions of law applicable and for adjudication thereof State Commission or Arbitrator so appointed by the State Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act shall be an effective and efficacious forum available to the parties. 39. Case law referred with reference to claims and counterclaims of parties on merits of the dispute has not been discussed. As such issues are to be adjudicated and decided by forum/authority adjudicating the dispute on merits, thus, not necessary to be considered in this application. 40. Considering the statement in the plaint, along with documents filed therewith as well as relevant case law as discussed herein above, suit appears to be barred by Electricity Act, 2003 and therefore, present application is allowed and plaint is rejected under Section 11(d) of CPC, with liberty to the plaintiffs to avail appropriate remedy in the light of observations made herein above. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.