TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference with the Appellate Tribunal's findings. (ii) Whether the delay in commissioning the solar project was covered by the force majeure clause of the power purchase agreement, entitling the respondents to extension of time and disentitling the appellant from reducing tariff or levying liquidated damages.
Issue (i): Whether the appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference with the Appellate Tribunal's findings.
Analysis: The appellate jurisdiction under Section 125 is confined to substantial questions of law. The dispute before the Appellate Tribunal turned primarily on attribution of delay, which was a factual determination based on appreciation of the materials concerning land conversion, evacuation approval, and related regulatory steps. The findings of the Appellate Tribunal were not shown to be illegal, unreasonable, or perverse, and the appellants did not identify any substantial question of law for consideration.
Conclusion: The appeals did not disclose any substantial question of law, and no interference was called for.
Issue (ii): Whether the delay in commissioning the solar project was covered by the force majeure clause of the power purchase agreement, entitling the respondents to extension of time and disentitling the appellant from reducing tariff or levying liquidated damages.
Analysis: The force majeure clause was required to be construed according to its text and structure, including the requirement that the inability to obtain approvals must be despite compliance with legal requirements and not caused by the party's own negligence or omission. On the facts found by the Appellate Tribunal, the delay in obtaining land conversion, evacuation approval, and related permissions was attributable to the time taken by government authorities and not to any lack of diligence by the respondents. The appellant had itself granted an extension after examining the matter, and the commissioning occurred within the extended period. In that setting, the contractual conditions for force majeure and extension of time were satisfied, and the contractual basis for tariff reduction and liquidated damages did not survive.
Conclusion: The delay was covered by force majeure, the respondents were entitled to extension of time, and the tariff reduction and liquidated damages were not justified.
Final Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal's decision was sustained, and the appeals were dismissed because the factual findings on delay and the contractual consequences required no appellate interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, interference lies only on a substantial question of law, and where the tribunal's factual finding that delay was not attributable to the contractual party is supported by the record, a narrowly construed force majeure clause may justify extension of time and exclude tariff reduction and liquidated damages.
TaxTMI 
