SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 181

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, JJ.
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED - APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED & ORS. - RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.684 OF 2021 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.6927 OF 2021
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. G. Saikumar, Adv. Mr. Samir Malik, Adv. Ms. Nikita Choukse, Adv. Ms. Farha Malik, Adv. For M/S. D.S.K. Legal Mr. Udit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anup Jain, Adv. Mr. Prachi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vyom Chaturvedi, Adv. For M/s. Udit Kishan And Associates Mr. M.G. Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Ms. Poorva Saigal,Adv. Mr. Shubham Arya,Adv. Mr. Nikunj Dayal,Adv. Ms. Pallavi Saigal,Adv. Mr. Ravi Nair.Adv. Ms. Shikha Sood,Adv. Ms. Reeha Singh,Adv. Ms. Anumeha Smiti,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishrov Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Yashaswi Kant, Adv. Mr. Girik Bhalla, Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Darius Khambata, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Kapur, Adv. Ms. Poonam Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Saunak Rajguru, Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv. Ms. Deepsika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ankitesh Ojha, Adv. Mr. Karan Rukhana, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 63 - Change in Law provisions - The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited entered into Power Purchase Agreements with Adani Power Maharashtra Limited and GMR Warora Energy Ltd. - The issues revolved around the applicable Station Heat Rate (SHR) and Gross Calorific Value (GCV) that would affect compensation claims based on changes in coal distribution policies. (Paras 1 - 155)

(B) Regulatory Provisions - The New Coal Distribution Policy (NCDP) affected coal supply commitments, shifting from 100% supply guaranteed to lower percentages due to domestic shortages - The court emphasized that the intention was to restore affected parties to their original economic position pre-change. (Paras 10 - 10.1.2)

(C) Appellate Decisions - The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) upheld the need to assess coal supply based on current conditions rather than bid parameters, aligning with regulatory norms that account for operational efficiency and market realities, affirming the importance of a fair distribution of risk between generators and consumers. (Paras 8.8 - 8.30)

(D) Conclusion - The court ruled against the approach favoring a strict application of quoted bid terms over regulatory guidelines, emphasizing the principle of restitution where generators may claim for unforeseen increases in operational costs. Appeals dismissed. (Para 156)

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

INDEX

I.

INTRODUCTION

Paras 1 and 2

II.

FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.684 OF 2021

Paras 3 to 29

III.

FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6927 OF 2021

Paras 30 to 39

IV.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DISCOMS

Paras 43

V.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE GENERATING COMPANIES

Paras 44 and 45

V.

RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

Paras 46 to 83

VI.

JUDGMENTS CITED

Paras 84 to 93

VII.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO REGULATORY MECHANISM

Paras 94 to 104

VIII.

CONSIDERATIONS

Para 105 onwards

List of abbreviations:

1.

ACQ

Annual Contracted Quantity

2.

APML

Adani Power Maharashtra Limited

3.

APTEL

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity

4.

C&AG

Comptroller and Auditor General of India

5.

CCEA

Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs

6.

CERC

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

7.

CIL

Coal India Limited

8.

CPP

Captive Power Plants

9.

DISCOMS

Distribution Companies

10.

FSA

Fuel Supply Agreement

11.

GCV

Gross Calorific Value

12.

GMR

GMR Warora Energy Ltd.

13.

GMRETL

GMR Energy Trading Limited

14.

IPPs

Independent Power Producers

15.

LoA

Letter of Assurance

16.

MERC

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission

17.

MoC

Ministry of Coal

18.

MoP

Ministry of Power

19.

MSEDCL

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

20.

NCDP

New Coal Distributional Policy

21.

PLF

Plant Load Factor

22.

PPAs

Power Purchase Agreements

23.

PSA

Power Sale Agreement

24.

RFP

Request for Proposal

25.

SECL

South Eastern Coal Limited

26.

SHR

Station Heat Rate

27.

TPPs

Thermal Power Stations

28.

UHBVNL

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited

29.

WCL

Western Coal Limited

INTRODUCTION

1. The questions involved in both these appeals, as in several other appeals, are common.

2. Three of the issues involved in the present appeals are also involved in the other appeals which were listed along with these two appeals. However, the other appeals also involve some other ancillary and incidental issues. As such, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the present appeals. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing in the other appeals on the three questions which are common.

FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 684 OF 2021

3. The facts, in brief, which arise in Civil Appeal No.684 of 2021 are thus:

4. The appellant-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “MSEDCL”) has entered into a long-term Power Purchase Agreements (“PPAs” for short) with Adani Power Maharashtra Limited (hereinafter referred to as “APML”). The first of the PPAs is dated 8th September 2008 for 1320 MW (“1320 MW PPA” for short); the second one is dated 31st March 2010 for 1200 MW (“1200 MW PPA” for short); the third one is dated 9th August 2010 for 125 MW (“125 MW PPA” for short); and the fourth one is dated 16th February 2013 for 440 MW (“440 MW PPA” for short). These PPAs were entered into in pursuance of the competitive bidding processes conducted by the appellant-MSEDCL under Section 63 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the ELECTRICITY ACT ”) read with the Standard Bidding Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Power (“MoP” for short).

5. Article 10 of the 1200 MW PPA dated 31st March 2010 entered into between the appellant-MSEDCL and respondent No.1-APML deals with “Change in Law”.

6. Article 10.1.2 defines the term “Change in Law”.

7. Article 10.2 deals with the application and principles for computing the impact of Change in Law. Article 10.2.1 provides that while determining the consequence of a Change in Law under Article 10, due regard has to be given to the principle, that


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top