Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

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

 

Latest Legal News