Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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