Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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