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

2021 Supreme(Online)(SC) 498

SUPREME COURT
Arun Mishra, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Emmvee Photovoltaic Power Private Limited – Respondent
Civil Appeal 9273 of 2019 | Civil Appeal 9274 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan
For the Respondents:Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Senior Advocate

The court affirmed that the Scheduled Commissioning Date for Solar Projects is crucial, with practical implications for penalties based on power injection into the grid.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Power Purchase Agreements - Scheduled Commissioning Date - Dispute over the computation of twelve months for commissioning of Solar Power Projects - Appellate Tribunal held that actual injection of power into the Grid is critical for determining commissioning - Tribunal's findings reversed the order of KERC. (Paras 21 and 22)

(B) Contracts - Principles of interpretation - Clear language of the contract and its provisions must guide the interpretation - Court must avoid unnecessary complications in ascertaining intent of parties within the context of the contract. (Paras 15 and 16)

Facts of the case:
The appeals stemmed from a dispute regarding the commissioning dates of two Solar PV projects, with issues arising from the imposition of liquidated damages and tariff reductions based on the alleged delay of one day in commissioning.

Findings of Court:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld that the Scheduled Commissioning Date is 17.10.2017, validating the commencement of the Solar Plants’ operation; thus, liquidated damages should not have been imposed.

Issues: Primary issues included the proper calculation of Scheduled Commissioning Dates, the necessity of power injection for determining commissioning, and what constitutes delay as per the defined contractual terms.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that precise contract interpretation is essential and the actual injection of power is significant for assessing commissioning.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeals related to solar projects. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. main issues formulated by the karnataka electricity regulatory commission. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments by appellants and respondents regarding tariff and commissioning. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. contract interpretation principles relevant to scheduled commissioning date. (Para 15 , 20)
5. final decision affirming appellate tribunal’s findings. (Para 21 , 22)

1. These appeals arise out of a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at Delhi by which the order passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) was reversed.

2. The facts that are necessary for adjudication of the dispute in these appeals are as follows:
(a) Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Limited (KREDL) issued a Request for proposal on 20.11.2015 from bidders for undertaking development of Solar PV ground mount Power Plants in Karnataka pursuant to a decision taken by the State Government for development of 1200 MWA of Solar power to be implemented in 60 Taluks through private sector participation. Emmvee Photovoltaic Power Private Limited, the second Respondent herein, incorporated two Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) in accordance with the terms of the Request for Proposal and submitted its bid for acceptance by the first Appellant, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited.
(b) Respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal 9273 of 2019 is a special purpose vehicle constituted by Respondent No. 2 for setting up a Solar PV ground mount Project with a capacity of 10 MWA (AC) in Bidar Rural Taluk, Bidar District, Respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal 9274 of 2019 is a special purpose vehicle for setting up a 20 MWA (AC) capacity Solar PV ground mount Project in Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura.
(c) The Projects were awarded to the Respondents on 31.03.2016. Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) were entered into between the parties on 23.05.2016. The Power Purchase Agreements were approved by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) on 17.10.2016. Supplementary Power Purchase Agreements were entered into between the parties on 17.12.2016 incorporating the modifications suggested by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission on 07.12.2016.
(d) In respect of the Bidar Project, a Commissioning Certificate was issued on 25.10.2017 by KPTCL on the basis of minutes of meeting that was held on 16.10.2017. The Commissioning Certificate for Bagpalli Project was also issued on 23.11.2017.




3. Original Petition (OP) No. 18 of 2018 was filed by the Respondents in Civil Appeal 9274 of 2019 aggrieved by the reduction of the tariff payable by Appellant No. 1 from Rs. 6.10 / kWh to Rs. 4.36 / kWh and imposition of damages of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) for delay in commissioning the plant.

4. Apart from others, the main ground taken in the Original Petition by the Respondents is that Commissioning of the Project took place on 16.10.2017 which is clear from the Minutes of meeting drawn by the Officials of KPTCL. The meeting was attended by officers of KPTCL, officers of GSCOM and representatives of the Respondents. It was contended by the Respondents that the Project commenced its operations within 12 months from the date of approval of the PPA by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission and the imposition of damages and reduction of tariff payable by the Appellant was contrary to the provisions of the agreement.

5. Original Petition No. 19 of 2018 was filed by the Respondents in Civil Appeal 9273 of 2019 in respect of the Solar PV ground mount Power Project in Bidar for reliefs similar to those claimed in OP 18 of 2018.

6. The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission by its Order dated 23.10.2018 dismissed OP No. 18 of 2018 and OP No. 19 of 2018. The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission framed four issues for consideration which are as follows:
(i) 'Whether the Scheduled Commissioning date' of the Solar Power Projects in question would fall in 16.10








































































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