Back
Next 
Court Decision
2024-08-28
Subject: Energy Law - Electricity Regulation
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the appeals concerning the extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The case involved a solar power project in Karnataka, where the respondents, a special purpose vehicle and a solar power developer, faced delays attributed to various factors including government approvals and land conversion processes.
The appellants argued that the delays were due to the respondents' negligence in securing necessary approvals within the stipulated time frame. They contended that the force majeure clause should not apply as the respondents failed to provide timely notice of the claimed force majeure events. Conversely, the respondents maintained that the delays were beyond their control, citing bureaucratic inefficiencies and the government's acknowledgment of widespread issues faced by solar power developers.
The Supreme Court examined the findings of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which had previously ruled in favor of the respondents. The Court noted that the APTEL had considered the delays in obtaining land use conversion and evacuation approvals, which were not solely attributable to the respondents. The Court emphasized that the force majeure clause in the PPA was applicable, as the delays were due to factors beyond the respondents' control, including the time taken by government authorities to process necessary approvals.
The Court also highlighted that the appellant had previously granted a six-month extension, indicating recognition of the challenges faced by the respondents. This acknowledgment played a crucial role in the Court's decision to uphold the APTEL's findings.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the respondents were entitled to the benefits of the force majeure clause. The Court ruled that the commissioning of the project within the extended period negated the imposition of liquidated damages and the reduction of the tariff. This decision reinforces the importance of recognizing external factors affecting project timelines in the renewable energy sector.
Mechanical Issuance of LOCs in Section 498A BNS Cases Illegal Without Evasion or Grave Offence: Andhra Pradesh HC
17 Feb 2026
Mere Possession Of Bank's Stationery Without Proof Of Prejudice Not Misconduct: Calcutta High Court
17 Feb 2026
Contradictory Testimonies of Interested Witnesses and Lack of Corroboration Warrant Acquittal Under Sections 147, 304 Part-I/149 IPC: Calcutta High Court
17 Feb 2026
Absconding Accused Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail On Co-Accused Acquittal Alone: Supreme Court
17 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Seeks Affidavit on TET for Secondary Special Educators
17 Feb 2026
Unproven Accusations of Wife's Extramarital Affair Amount to Mental Cruelty, Justifying Separation: Karnataka HC Denies Divorce on Desertion
17 Feb 2026
Flight Risk and Economic Interests Justify LOC Even Pre-Prosecution in Corporate Fraud: Calcutta High Court
17 Feb 2026
Only Enrolled Advocates Can Practice Before Tribunals: BCI and Tax Lawyers Argue in Delhi High Court
17 Feb 2026
Delhi HC Directs Joint Meeting Between DCGI & Legal Metrology on Mandatory Veg/Non-Veg Dots for Cosmetics: Rule 6(8) Legal Metrology Rules
17 Feb 2026
(1) Appeal to Supreme Court – Requirement under Section 125 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not merely a ‘question of a law’ but a ‘substantial question of law’ – APTEL as an appellate body is to hear ap....
Imposition of penalty for delay in commissioning of plant as per PPA is justified, termination of PPA not.
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
