Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SUPREME COURT
Mr. Justices, J
State Electricity Board – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the power purchase agreements and regulatory changes. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding regulatory powers and tariff modification. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. observations on the applicability of regulations to existing contracts. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. conclusively ruling against the tribunal's order. (Para 14) |
1. Heard Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.G. Umapathy for Respondent 1.
3. Subsequently, by a supplemental agreement dated 29-10-2005 entered into between the appellant and Respondent 1, Paras 5.1 and 5. 2 of the agreement dated
The court reinforced that once a power purchase agreement is approved, its terms cannot be altered except under specified conditions, reflecting legislative intent.
Tariff modifications in power purchase agreements must comply with regulatory approvals as per Section 86(1)(b) of the Act, ensuring valid determination of electricity purchase prices.
Power purchase agreements must be aligned with regulatory frameworks and cannot be enforced if unapproved, particularly regarding classifications impacting fixed charges.
The court necessitated a fresh review by the High Court due to its failure to meaningfully engage with the discriminatory impact of revised regulations on projects in the same control period.
Regulations framed under a statute must not conflict with the provisions of that statute; any such conflicting regulation is deemed ultra-vires.
The Union Territory of Puducherry is determined not to be a HT consumer; therefore, it should pay only actual charges under inter-state sales obligations, rejecting the imposition of HT rates.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article