Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: The Supreme Court clarified that an unexpected rise in the price of coal does not absolve generating companies from their contractual obligations under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). The fundamental basis of the contract remains intact, and the risk of fuel price fluctuations was knowingly accepted by the bidders at the time of submission (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Energy Watchdog vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 335

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Energy Watchdog – Appellant
Versus
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Pranav Sachdeva, Prashant Bhushan, G. Umapathy, Rakesh K. Sharma, Aditya Singh, Nikhil Nayyar, Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv., Amit Kapur, Ms. Apoorva Misra, Abhishek Munot, Kunal Kaul, Vishrov Mukherjee, Rohit Venkat, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Uday Manaktala, Ms. Raveena Dhamija, Udit Gupta, Anup Jain, K. Parameshwar, (M/s Udit Kishan and Associates), Raj Kumar Mehta, Elangbam Premjit Singh, Ms. Himanshi Andley, Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, E.C. Agrawala, Ms. Malav Deliwala, M.G. Ramachandran, K.V. Mohan, Ms. Ranjitha Ramachandran, Ms. Poorva Saigal, Ms. Anushree Bardhan, Shubham Arya, Sidharth Sethi, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Nikunj Dayal, (M/s. Karanjawala & Co.), Tushar Bakshi, Chandra Prakash, Kumar Mihir, Pradeep Misra, Advs.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The Supreme Court clarified that an unexpected rise in the price of coal does not absolve generating companies from their contractual obligations under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). The fundamental basis of the contract remains intact, and the risk of fuel price fluctuations was knowingly accepted by the bidders at the time of submission (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman, J.

The present appeals arise from a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity dated 7th April, 2016. The facts necessary to appreciate the issues which arise in the present case, which will cover all the cases before us, will be taken only from Civil Appeal No.5348 of 2016, namely Prayas (Energy) Group v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.

2. Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for procurement of power and determination of tariff by a transparent competitive bidding process. Once this is done, the appropriate Commission is to "adopt" the tariff which is accepted in the competitive bid subject to guidelines that are made by the Central Government. On 19th January, 2005, the Central Government issued detailed guidelines under this provision, which were amended from time to time. On 1st February, 2006, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) issued a public notice inviting proposals for supply of power on long term basis under three different competitive bid processes. The participating bidders were to decide on the tariff and quote such tariff after competing against each other. The bidders were entitled to quote escalable or non-es

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 335

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ROHINTON FALI NARIMANEnergy Watchdog – AppellantVersusCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Energy Watchdog – Appellant
Versus
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission – Respondent