Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Power Companies, Rejects Coercion Claims in Power Purchase Agreements

03 September 2024 10:33 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment upholding the validity of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) entered into by power companies and rejecting allegations of coercion and unequal bargaining power. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice M. M. Sundresh, provides crucial clarity on the applicability of amendments to pre-existing contracts in the electricity sector.

The Supreme Court categorically stated, "The PPAs entered into by the parties before the Second Amendment to the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Regulations were not affected by its terms." The court further emphasized that the respondents' claims of coercion lacked evidence and specific details, and criticized the Appellate Tribunal for failing to provide proper reasoning in endorsing such findings.

Under the REC Mechanism, power companies sold electricity to distribution licensees at a mutually agreed price, not exceeding the Average Power Purchase Cost (APPC) of the DISCOMs. The companies also benefited from the trading of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in the Power Exchange, which provided additional revenues. The respondents argued that the PPAs they had entered into were less advantageous than the preferential tariff determined by the state commission.

Justice Kaul clarified, "Unless any later amendment expressly overrides existing contracts, the terms of such agreements bind the parties." The court emphasized that PPAs were the result of voluntary negotiations between parties with equal bargaining power and within the framework of existing regulations.

The judgment, setting aside the concurrent findings and orders of the State Commission and the Appellate Tribunal, concluded, "The appeals are allowed, with costs payable to the appellants."

Date of Decision: April 13, 2023

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED & ORS. vs RENEW WIND ENERGY

Latest Legal News