Supreme Court said that a deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better
Supreme Court has requested the Union of India along with Ministry of Power to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by the DISCOMS to the Generating Companies, which would avoid huge carrying cost to be passed over to the end consumers.
Supreme court was of the opinion that the “casual approach of APTEL, in not reasoning how such findings could be rendered, cannot be countenanced. As a judicial tribunal, dealing with contracts and bargains, which are entered into by parties with equal bargaining power, APTEL is not expected to casually render findings of coercion, or fraud, without proper pleadings or proof, or without probing into evidence.”
The Supreme Court upheld the judgement passed by the APTEL after observing that the generating companies were entitled to compensation so as to restore them to the same economic position, if the Change in Law had not occurred.
The Court rejected the contention forwarded by defendant 3 to the effect that the present issue had an impact on tariff, as the actions of the plaintiff had prevented the applicant from supplying power to defendant 3 under the PSA resulting into defendant 3 being forced to secure power from the open market at rates much higher than the tariff determined.
Presenting to you tour d’horizon of all the significant decisions covered in the month of December 2022 of the Tribunals, Commissions and Regulatory Bodies.
The interest in ‘carrying cost' is nothing but time value for money and the only way a party can be afforded the benefit of restitution in every which way.
Bombay High Court: While deliberating upon the instant writ petition seeking temporary, time-limited relief so that the Letter of Credit is not
Supreme Court: In a big win for Adani Power Limited, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJI and Krishna Murari and Hima