Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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