Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Reliance Infrastructure wins arbitration dispute against State of Goa, High Court's verdict set aside

03 September 2024 10:17 AM

By: Admin


Reliance Infrastructure has emerged victorious in an arbitration dispute against the State of Goa over the delayed payment for the construction of a power plant. The Bombay High Court had reduced the interest rate awarded to Reliance by the arbitrator, but the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's verdict and restored the award in its entirety.

Reliance Infrastructure had constructed a 48 MW power plant for the State of Goa under a power purchase agreement (PPA). The project was commissioned in 2013, and Reliance sought arbitration in 2016 after the state failed to pay for the power generated by the plant. In 2018, the arbitrator awarded Reliance a sum of Rs. 292.22 crore along with an interest of 15% per annum from 1st August 2013 till the date of payment.

However, the State of Goa challenged the award in the Bombay High Court, which reduced the interest rate to 10% per annum. Reliance then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the High Court's verdict.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar observed that the High Court had misdirected itself on the major issues concerning the merits of the award. The court noted that the arbitrator had acted within his jurisdiction in awarding the interest rate of 15% per annum, as prevailing interest rates at the time were in the range of 13% to 14% per annum.

The Supreme Court also held that the scope of "patent illegality" cannot be breached by mere use of different expressions which nevertheless refer only to "error" and not to "patent illegality". The court reprimanded the High Court for relying on the analysis of a learned Single Judge instead of examining the enunciations of the Supreme Court in earlier judgments.

The court set aside the High Court's verdict and restored the award in its entirety. The appeal filed by Reliance Infrastructure was allowed accordingly, and the appeal filed by the State of Goa was dismissed. The court ordered that no costs be awarded.

D.D-10.May.2023

RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.   vs STATE OF GOA 

Latest Legal News