Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana 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