Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Supreme Court Upholds Compensation for Shortfall in Coal Supply under Power Purchase Agreements

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the entitlement of generating companies to compensation for the shortfall in domestic linkage coal supply under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, settles the long-standing dispute between generating companies and distribution companies (DISCOMS) regarding compensation for change in law and coal supply issues.

The dispute centered around the interpretation of provisions of the PPA, the National Coal Distribution Policy, Tariff Regulations, and expert opinions. The court considered the Station Heat Rate (SHR) and Gross Calorific Value (GCV) as key factors in determining compensation for the shortfall in coal supply.

The court affirmed the concurrent findings of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which held that the SHR and GCV should be considered as per the regulations or actuals, whichever is lower. This decision ensures a fair balance between the interests of the generators and consumers in the electricity sector.

Supreme Court as follows: "SHR and GCV should be considered as per the regulations or actuals, whichever is lower: Supreme Court." This statement underscores the court's emphasis on adhering to the regulatory framework while addressing the compensation issue.

Additionally, the court upheld the entitlement of generating companies to claim late payment surcharge from DISCOMS for delayed payments under the PPA. The court agreed with the CERC and the APTEL that the DISCOMS had delayed payments and, therefore, the generating companies were entitled to receive the surcharge.

The news article highlights the conflicting stands taken by the DISCOMS in different cases and the court's admonishment of such inconsistency. The court noted that the DISCOMS contended that generators should seek remedies against coal companies instead of claiming compensation under the PPA, contradicting the stance taken by the Union of India.

"DISCOMS' contention that generators should seek remedies against coal companies is unreasonable: Supreme Court." The court's rejection of this argument underscores its commitment to ensuring fair compensation for the generators and maintaining the delicate balance in the electricity sector.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has brought clarity to the compensation issue, providing generators with a legal recourse to recover losses incurred due to the shortfall in coal supply. The ruling is expected to have a significant impact on the power sector, promoting stability and fairness in power purchase agreements.

Date of Decision: March 3, 2023

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED vs ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED

 

Similar News