Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Unit No. 3 of the project could be treated as having achieved commercial operation on 31.3.2013 under the power purchase agreement, despite the performance test certificate showing tested capacity far below the contracted capacity and the requirements of the commissioning schedule not being satisfied. (ii) Whether the procurers had validly waived the contractual requirement of achieving 95% of contracted capacity, and whether such waiver could be given effect to when tariff and consumer interest were affected.
Issue (i): Whether Unit No. 3 of the project could be treated as having achieved commercial operation on 31.3.2013 under the power purchase agreement, despite the performance test certificate showing tested capacity far below the contracted capacity and the requirements of the commissioning schedule not being satisfied.
Analysis: The contractual scheme required synchronization, commissioning, and then commercial operation only after a final test certificate recording successful performance testing at not less than 95% of contracted capacity for 72 continuous hours and compliance with the relevant functional requirements. The certificate dated 30.3.2013 recorded tested capacity of only 101.38 MW, did not satisfy the contractual performance standard, and did not answer the stipulated requirement for commercial operation. On the record, the later certificate in August alone satisfied the contractual preconditions.
Conclusion: Unit No. 3 could not be treated as having achieved commercial operation on 31.3.2013; the contractual COD did not arise on that date.
Issue (ii): Whether the procurers had validly waived the contractual requirement of achieving 95% of contracted capacity, and whether such waiver could be given effect to when tariff and consumer interest were affected.
Analysis: Waiver under contract law requires a clear and intentional relinquishment of a known right. The correspondence relied upon showed only a refusal to accept the 30.3.2013 certificate as compliance with the contractual standard and a limited acceptance of de-rated capacity for immediate operational purposes. The Court further held that any waiver affecting tariff under a competitively bid power purchase structure would impact consumer interest and public interest, and therefore could not be enforced without satisfying the statutory framework governing tariff and bidding-based adoption.
Conclusion: There was no valid waiver of the 95% requirement, and in any event such a waiver could not be given effect to where it would adversely affect consumer and public interest.
Final Conclusion: The appellate finding accepting COD on 31.3.2013 and upholding waiver was set aside, and the regulatory commission's view was restored on the central questions of contractual compliance and public-interest limits on waiver.
Ratio Decidendi: A contractual condition in a competitively bid electricity tariff arrangement that is integral to commissioning and affects consumer tariff cannot be waived except by a clear intentional relinquishment, and such waiver will not be enforced where it undermines public or consumer interest.