Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

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