Experts CornerKhaitan & Co

As global discussions on climate change and the pressing need to reduce dependency on fossil fuels take centre stage, India too is taking steps to embrace and promote green energy. The Indian Government recently announced plans to formulate a “green tariff policy” with a view to incentivise consumption of renewable energy over non-renewable energy. Under this policy, power distribution companies (DISCOMS) will supply power generated from renewable sources to consumers at a tariff that is lower than that of conventional energy.


The principal idea behind the proposal of green tariff policy is that this will encourage more consumers to opt for cleaner green energy, thereby pushing DISCOMS to contract more renewable power, even beyond their renewable purchase obligations (RPOs), as there will be sufficient demand in the market for clean energy.


This is a welcome move. However, while it is agreed that Governments across the globe should take steps to incentivise consumers opting for clean energy, the announcement of India’s green tariff policy has raised some concern regarding certain gaps that will need to be addressed.


Let us discuss some of these gaps that will require urgent attention as we move towards implementing this new policy.

Rising construction costs for solar projects

This proposal of introducing a green tariff policy floated because around that time, the tariffs, which were being determined through competitive bidding processes, had gone down as low as INR 1.99 per unit and INR 2.43 per unit for solar and wind projects respectively. However, recently Ministry of Finance through its Notification dated 30-9-2021 [Ref. No. 8/2021 – Central Tax (Rate)] has revised the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) rates on “solar power-based devices” from 2.5% to 6% thereby revising the GST rates on “solar power-based devices” from 5% to 12% [CGST plus State Goods and Services Tax (SGST)]. With this revision in the GST rates, the cost of construction for the solar projects will substantially increase which will be reflected accordingly in the determined tariff rates. Thus, the tariff rates for solar projects will not remain this low for upcoming projects.


Deviation in renewable power generation

The biggest obstacle for the proper implementation of green tariff policy would be that renewable power is infirm in nature i.e. it is dependent upon variable natural factors, such as wind speed and solar irradiation, thereby causing the actual generation to vary from the scheduled generation which eventually create grid insecurity issues. So, if the DISCOMS start increasing their contracted renewable capacities in light of its growing demand among the consumers, then they would also be needing sufficient conventional power to absorb the deviations happening in green energy generation in order to maintain grid stability. The same can further be corroborated by Central Electricity Authority’s (CEA) Report on Optimal Generation Capacity Mix for 2029-2030 which states that India’s projected peak demand value in October 2029 will be approximately 340 GW, and a thermal installed capacity of approximately 267 GW will be required to meet such demand.


Issues pertaining to “banking” of power

One way to tackle the issue of deviation of actual renewable power generation from the scheduled generation by the renewable power developers is through banking the surplus power with the DISCOM concerned. However, the banking regime/regulations are not consistent across the States in India. All the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions have formulated their respective banking regulations for renewable power generators on the basis of numerous factors including load requirement in the State concerned, commercial status of the consumers and the respective State targets for green power integration to the grid. There are some States which do not encourage the provision of facility of banking to renewable power developers citing commercial reasons (adverse impact on the viability of the State DISCOMS, etc.) and impose restrictions on the facility of banking including imposing time of day (TOD) restriction for withdrawal of banked power, levy of heavy banking charges and allowing facility of banking only on seasonal basis.


On-site battery storage – A solution?

Considering the issues pertaining to the facility of banking, one of the prospective ways of implementing the green tariff policy would be to align this with the requirement of on-site battery storage facility for renewable power plants. Government has been planning to create a robust regulatory framework for developing energy storage systems in India. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) had also constituted an expert committee to draft policy to establish a National Energy Storage Mission. Also, a policy framework is being prepared to introduce on-site battery storage systems for wind and solar projects. Recently, in December 2020, Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) had issued a tender for a 20 MW solar project along with an on-site 50 MWh battery energy storage system to be set up at Phyang, Leh, Union Territory of Ladakh. In past two years, SECI had issued other tenders as well for setting up of solar projects along with on-site battery storage systems. Apart from this, SECI has also issued a tender for 2000 MWh of standalone energy storage systems.


A robust battery storage mechanism can play a pivotal role in ensuring grid security vis-à-vis increasing green power integration to the grid. However, battery storage facilities/systems have not been introduced in India yet on a commercial level and are still at a very nascent stage. Therefore, the associated costs for creating such an infrastructure would be much higher which will eventually be reflected in the corresponding tariff rates as well. So, even if the green tariff policy is introduced after ensuring that there is on-site storage facility for renewable power projects, the tariff determined/adopted will still be significantly high and cannot be less than that of thermal power tariff rates.

Green tariff policy: The road ahead

One may say that this is the classic case of “putting the cart before the horse”. If incentivising the consumers would create an unwarranted demand to shift to green energy, then there is a clear challenge with respect to the grid coming under extreme pressure. The Government must be mindful of this, as they cannot introduce the policy without taking into consideration the aforementioned issues. Incentivising and boosting demand disproportionately, without creating the necessary infrastructure to support the increased demand could lead to a major challenge. One could say that going forward with the green tariff policy without addressing the above issues will be somewhat of a hasty move.


In order for it to be efficacious, it is imperative that sufficient cost-effective infrastructure for on-site battery storage is created first at the national and State level. Only a robust battery storage infrastructure could minimise the deviation related risks in renewable power generation, which will thereby propel green energy’s market share.


For now, all eyes are on the Government as they deliberate on what would be the best possible way to take into account all stakeholders’ interests, including the pressures that could adversely impact DISCOMS in the future.


† Shivanshu Thaplyal, Partner in the Energy, Infrastructure & Resources team at Khaitan & Co. Shivanshu regularly advises on corporate/commercial matters and policy and regulatory issues.

†† Rishabh Sharma, Associate in the Energy, Infrastructure & Resources team at Khaitan & Co.

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1 – Inaugural Ceremony & Preliminary Rounds

The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019 has been inaugurated in the honorable presence of Dean Dr. I.P. Massey and the Registrar. The registrations and exchange of memorials between the teams is underway in the auditorium, while the Researchers have begun with the Researcher’s Test!

4.30 PM – Preliminary Round 1 Begins

The judges have been briefed and they are really excited to witness the competition this time. The first Preliminary Rounds are about to begin and we wish all the participants good luck!

6 PM – Preliminary Round 1 ends

The first set of preliminary rounds have ended. The participants are tired after passionately arguing their sides, yet are enthusiastic for the next set. The second set of preliminary rounds will start soon, which will be followed by the reverse prelims.



8 PM – Preliminary Round 2 ends

The two sets of reverse prelims will begin soon, followed by declaration of the teams advancing to the Octa-finals, to be held tomorrow.

9 PMReverse Prelims begin

The the reverse prelims have begun. This is to ensure each team has an equal chance to argue both sides, and thus maintain a balance in scores. The participants are tired, yet are positive as ever!

11.30 PM Reverse prelims end, results announced

The reverse prelims have been concluded, and due to the brilliant organizers in the tabulation team, we were able to receive the results quickly. Following are the teams qualifying to the Octa-Finals (in no particular order) :

  1. Institute of Law, Nirma University.
  2. Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
  3. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
  4. Gujarat National Law University.
  5. National Law University, Odisha.
  6. ILS Law College, Pune.
  7. Amity Law School, IP.
  8. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.
  9. Hidayatullah National Law University.
  10. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  11. Government Law College, Mumbai.
  12. School of Law, Christ University.
  13. Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University.
  14. SVKM’S NMIMS KIRIT P Mehta School of Law.
  15. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.
  16. Chanakya National Law University.

Memorials have been exchanged according to the match-ups, and the days events have come to an end. We congratulate the Octa-Finalists!

Day 2 – Octa Finals, Panel Discussion and Quarter Finals

The second day of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition is successfully underway!

9.30 AM – Octa Finals commence

The judges have been briefed and the Octa Finals have commenced in the respective courtrooms. The participants look fresh and well rested even though they might have been ripping apart their opponent’s memorials all through the night! Wishing them all the best!

Judges scrutinizing the arguments.

1 PM – 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion on Competition Law’s Interface with IBC commences

With the first set of Octa Final rounds over, preparations are in full swing for the reverse Octa Final Rounds. Meanwhile, participants attended the 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion, 2019. The topic for this year’s panel discussion pertains to Interface of Competition Law with the Indian Bankruptcy Code. Our esteemed panelists for this discussion are:

  • Ms. Anubhuti Mishra – An alumnus of King’s College, London and Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, she is currently working with the Competition Law team at P&A Law Offices, New Delhi. She has advised on several antitrust enforcement as well as merger review matters.
  • Mr. Shashank Sharma – Graduated from National Law School of India University in 2013. Thereafter, he went on to complete his European Master in Law and Economics in 2017. Since then he has been working with AZB & Partners, where his primary focus is Competition Law, with specific focus on Behavioural & Merger Control.
  • Mr. Toshit Shandilya – Graduated from National Law University, Delhi in 2013, he is currently an associate in the Competition Law team of Talwar Thakore & Associates. He has been involved in various critical enforcement and merger control cases before the CCI, as well as the COMPAT. He has been a law clerk with Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, former chairman, COMPAT where he assisted on a number of important cartel and Abuse of Dominance cases.
Our esteemed Panelists engaging with the participants.

The participants of the panel discussion posed certain interesting questions to our Panelists. The questions ranged from procedural to policy issues, arising from the requirement of taking CCI’s approval for insolvency resolution plans that include combinations. The participants and the Panelists engaged on concepts, such as, the failing firm defence, composite combination transactions, inter-connected transactions, and so on, to name a few. The Panelists also threw some light on their practical experience as Competition Lawyers while dealing with complicated transactions that fall within the regime of the IBC. The interactive session provided the participants an insight into the complex interface between the IBC and Competition Law.

5 PM – Octa’s concluded, results announced

The Octa Finals and the Reverse Octa Finals have been concluded. While the participants argued commendably, our Judges had a tough time reaching consensus. The following are the teams progressing towards the Quater Finals (in no particular order):

  1. National Law University, Odisha.
  2. ILS Law College, Pune.
  3. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  4. Institute of Law, Nirma University.
  5. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
  6. SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law.
  7. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar.
  8. Symbiosis Law School, Noida.

We congratulate the qualifying teams. The exchange of memorials for the Quarter Finals shall be taking place soon at the Registration desk.

A glance into the Quarter Finals.


Participant engrossed in the opponent’s arguments.


7.30 PM – Quarter Finals concluded, results announced.

The Quarter Finals of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition have come to an end. Here are the teams that have qualified to the Semi Finals.

  1. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  2. Gujarat National Law University.
  3. National Law University, Odisha.
  4. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.

A hearty congratulations to all the Semi Finalists!

8 PM – Semi Finals Underway

The Semi Finals are currently underway. The teams are engaged in fierce argumentation before an eminent panel of judges in both court rooms. Here, take a glimpse at the rounds.

Judges Vijay Pratap Chouhan (Associate, Platinum Partners), Anand Vikas Mishra (Deputy Director, Competition Commission of India) and Anisha Chand (Principal Associate, Khaitan & Co).


Judge Anand Vikas Mishra testing the participant’s understanding of the law.


Judges Anand Kumar Singh (Assistant Professor, National Law University Jodhpur, specialising in Competition Law), Rahul Satyan (Senior Partner, Competition and Antitrust team at AZB & Partners) and Toshit Chandilya (Associate, Competition Law team at Talwar Thakore & Associates) in Court Room 2.


Participants observing the arguments of their opponent team.

10.15 PM – Semi Finals concluded

After establishing their ‘dominant position’ in this relevant mooting market, the following two teams will battle it out in the Finale of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019:

  1. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  2. Gujarat National Law University.

The Memorials will be exchanged between the finalists soon. May the best market player win the battle.

Day 3 – Finals and Valedictory Ceremony

9.30 AM The audience and judges are seated in the auditorium and the Final rounds of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition will begin shortly.

9.40 AM – The first speaker from the Applicant’s side, begins his speech. He is calm and is responding well to the judges, who waste no opportunity in grilling him on the law and facts. The bench is fairly active, and all the three judges are participating equally.

Dr. K.D.Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) and Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.), having a look at the proposition.


Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) indulgent in the oral rounds during the Finals.

10.20 AM – Speaker 2 from the Applicant’s side has now taken over. She begins her submission by trying to prove that DOPE is not an enterprise, as per the statutory definition under Sections 2(h) read with Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002. She relies on the lack of an economic function, to prove so. However, the judges seem unconvinced, and asks the counsel to clarify the origin of this requirement. Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) questions the counsel on the intricacies involved while relying on Section 3(3) along with Section 2(h). The counsel further cites the Coordination Committee case, to prove her point.

Respondent’s gearing up for their turn.

10.35 AM – The judges inquire about the ratio of the LPG Gas Cylinder case, and its relevance to the current argument. With only 2 mins left on the clock, the counsel moves to her second issue, regarding cartelisation. She seeks an extension of time, which is granted. Towards the end of her submissions, one of the judges pose a question regarding the lack of any arguments on mitigation of penalty. The counsel confidently replies that her party is not in violation of any competition or antitrust rules, and thereby need not argue on penalty. This creates a good impression upon the judges.

10.46 AM – The first speaker from the Respondent side, takes the podium. He appears immensely composed, and requests 30 seconds to arrange his documents on the podium. His speech is structured and brief, and the judges seem to be nodding in appreciation. He begins his first submission, on the maintainability of Jeevan Pharma’s admission. Mr. Rahul Singh and Dr K.D Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) question the counsel on the distinction between the ability of the bench to hear the petition, and their power to grant compensation. The Counsel calmly tries to clarify his position, with reliance on the facts and clarifications, citing the relevant paragraphs, perfectly.

The Appellants discussing their strategy during the Finals.

11.00 AM – The counsel then moves to his second submission, regarding Jeevan Pharma’s abuse of its dominant position, and lays down the three tests required to show the same. The judges don’t seem satisfied with increased reliance on foreign cases, in light of extensive Indian jurisprudence in the area, but the counsel responds adequately. He then seeks an extension, which is happily granted by the judges. As the counsel ends his submissions and thanks the bench, the panel of judges apologise for their repeated probe into every submission of his. This lightens the atmosphere. The judges appeared quite pleased with his set of submissions.

11.24 AM – Speaker 2 now arrives at the podium, to continue her fellow counsel’s submissions. She begins her submission by laying out a roadmap, upon the judges seeking a clarification. Her issues pertain to the ability of the DG and CCR to proceed against DOPE, and DOPE’s violation of Section 3(3). The rain of questions continue, as was the case for the previous speakers. The judges question the line of argument, that the cryptic order of DG can be used against anyone. The counsel tries to clarify her position and does not lose hope.

11.35 AM – The counsel moves to her second submission and focuses on the agreement between the manufacturers, as well as between the manufacturers and the DOPE. She informally quotes Lord Denning and then the statutory definition. There is a good level of engagement between the counsel and the judges. After this speech, the judges decide against rebuttals and surrebuttals, However, they give into the finalists’ request. Speaker 1 from the respondent gives a brilliant rebuttal which leaves the audience as well as the judges in awe.

11.40 AM – The rounds have been concluded, and the finalists wait for the results.

12.15 – Valedictory ceremony commenced

Vice Chancellor, Ms. Poonam Pradhan Saxena and the Dean, Dr. I.P. Massey, with other esteemed faculty members and the judges have taken their seats in the auditorium. Senior Member of the Moot Court Committee opened the ceremony with a heart warming speech and addressed the participants waiting eagerly for the results.

12.30 – Vice Chancellor felicitates the gathering
The Vice Chancellor thanked Khaitan & Co. for their valuable partnership in organising this year’s Competition. She further stressed upon the importance of Competition Law as an emerging field. She also encouraged the participants to take part in more moot court competitions, as it helps to further one’s advocacy skills and analytical abilities.

12.35 – Dr. K.D. Singh addressed the crowd and informed the audience about CCI’s endeavours and how CCI has been happy to host the moot in association with NLU Jodhpur, for the past 10 years, and expressed his desire to continue the same for the coming years.

12.37 – Vice Chancellor presents the token of appreciation to Dr. K.D. Singh

12.38 – Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co) thanked Ms. Poonam Saxena and shared his experience as a corporate lawyer and left a very interesting question for the participants sitting in the audience, whether they are administering “justice” by being the extended arm

12.40 – Declaration of results

Mr. Rohan C. Thomas, Faculty Advisor of the Moot Court Committee, announces the results :

Second Best Student Advocate Anshika Jain (Gujarat National Law University)

Best Student Advocate – Juhi Hirani (Institute of Law, Nirma University) and Darshan H. Patankar (Gujarat National Law University)

Best Researcher – Eesha H. Sheth (SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law)

Best Memorial – Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.

Best Student Advocate for the Finals – Darshan H. Patankar (GNLU)

RUNNERS UP TEAM – Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

WINNING TEAM – Gujarat National Law University.

Winning Team of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Gujarat National Law University


Runners Up Team of Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Symbiosis Law School, Pune

12.45 – Closing Speech by the Co-Convener of the Moot Court Committee
Ms. Mansi Srivastava (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) shared her experience of being part of the organising committee for the past five years and how it feels surreal to be a part of it for one last time. She thanked the administration, the support staff, the volunteers and all the other Moot Court Committee Members for their support and contribution. She specially thanked Ms. Abhilasha Gupta and Ms. Subarna Saha (Advisors, Moot Court Committee) and Mr. Rahul Mantri (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) for being her pillars of strength throughout the competition and providing all the answers when she herself couldn’t find them. Lastly, she thanked Khaitan & Co. for their partnership and the Knowledge partner, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company (EBC) for providing the students with access to SCC Online that helped them in the preparation for their rounds.


12.48 – Certificate of participation given out to the participants.

The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition has thus been concluded.

Intellectual PropertyLegislation UpdatesNotifications

The Union Cabinet approved India’s first Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy on 13-05-2016. This policy is for awareness, creation, commercialization, protection and enforcement of Intellectual Property in India. This policy is the result of the previously published draft IPR policy by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) on 9-01-2015 for the comments from the stakeholders. This present policy has been finalized after discussions and comments provided by the stakeholders. The structural basics of the policy are seven broad objectives which are as follows:

  • Awareness: outreach and promotion
  • Generation of IPRs
  • Legal and legislative framework
  • Administration and management
  • Commercialization of IPR
  • Enforcement and adjudication
  • Human capital development

Under the aforementioned seven objectives, the policy seeks to cover aspects which are broadly summarized below:

  • bringing the administration and implementation of all IP-related laws as well as Copyright Act, 1957 and Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 under the Department of Industrial Promotion and Policy (DIPP)
  • Amending existing IP laws, rules and regulations in consultation with the stakeholders to bring clarity, simplification and transparency in administration and enforcement of IP rights.
  • Creating awareness about the economic, social and cultural benefits of IPRs in India and launching a nationwide promotion program under the umbrella slogan “Creative India, Innovative India”.
  • The aim of the policy is to formulate and implement sector-wise programs to tap the evaluated potential, assessing needs and providing support towards creation of IP.
  • Providing incentives to promote R&D including tax benefits, financial support for sale of products based on IPR generated from public funded research. Promoting the infusion of funds to public R&D as a part of corporate social responsibilities of companies and strengthening the enforcement mechanism for better protection of IPR.
  • Developing IPR expertise in industry, academia, legal practitioners, judiciary, IP users and civil society by proper training and introduction of multidisciplinary IP courses in all major training institutes such as judicial academies, the National Academy of Administration, police and customs academies etc.
  • Increasing the manpower and enhance Information and Communications Technology (ICT) infrastructure at different offices that administer IPR to ensure document management, adherence to timelines and time bound disposal of IPR applications.

Note by Khaitan & Co, Advocates since 1911. For more information contact

Picture credits:

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

Following the voluntary disclosure window under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (Foreign Black Money Law), the Government of India had announced the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (Scheme) in the Finance Bill, 2016. The Scheme was announced with the intention of attracting taxpayers to disclose their unaccounted domestic / Indian income and assets.

As per the Press Release issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 14 May 2016, the Scheme will remain open for four months from 1 June 2016 to 30 September 2016.

Broad mechanics of the Scheme

The Scheme applies to undisclosed / unaccounted domestic income and assets which were earned in any year prior to the financial year (FY) 2016-17 (i.e. FY 2015-16 and earlier years). The Scheme does not apply to any undisclosed foreign income and assets to which the Foreign Black Money Law applies.


Taxpayers can submit their declaration of the domestic undisclosed / unaccounted income and assets (online or with the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax) within the time period when the Scheme remains in force. A valid declaration made under the Scheme would protect the declarants from: (i) the rigours of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1957; (ii) scrutiny, enquiry and prosecution under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Wealth Tax Act.

Specific rules and forms for making the declaration (including the rules for valuation of assets, etc.) will be notified by the Government shortly.

Cost-benefit of the declaration

Please see below a compare of the tax costs involved in making a declaration under this Scheme vis-à-vis the potential risk detection of such undisclosed income/ assets by the Income Tax Department post closure of the Scheme.

Particulars Declaration under the Scheme Provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rules


Tax rate 30% (plus surcharge in the nature of Krishi Kalyan Cess of 7.5%) 30% (plus applicable surcharge and education cess of 3%)


Interest Not applicable 1% for every month or part of the month starting from the year in which income was earned


Penalty 25% of the tax (i.e. 7.5% of the value of income / assets declared)


Potentially 100% to 300% of the tax amount
Prosecution No


Total impact 45% of the income / assets declared 120% (i.e. tax plus penalty) plus applicable interest


Sanjay Sanghvi (Partner) and Surajkumar Shetty (Senior Associate)

Note by Khaitan & Co, Advocates since 1911. For more information contact

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

The Central Board of Excise and Customs has relaxed the KYC norms for imports effected by courier mode. In terms of the revised norms, where proof of address is not available with the consignee, the proof of identity would be treated as sufficient compliance. However, this relaxation is available only in respect of consignments of individuals for import of documents, gifts, samples or low value dutiable consignments valuing up to INR 50,000.

[Ref: Circular No 13/2016-Cus dated 26 April 2016]

Note by Khaitan & Co, Advocates since 1911. For more information contact