https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286960 The Power Purchase Agreement was construed as a whole, and Article 3.1 with Schedule VI required the generator to declare available capacity and allocate it between the two beneficiaries on a proportionate basis. The parties' correspondence, including earlier acceptance of a 58:42 allocation, supported that construction, and the later settlement did not extinguish the claim for the period in dispute. Compensation for diversion of power could not be refused merely because actual loss had not yet been separately quantified, where the Commission had left loss assessment for later determination. The generator was therefore bound to follow the 58:42 allocation, and compensation for diversion was payable. en-us Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:40:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286960 The Power Purchase Agreement was construed as a whole, and Article 3.1 with Schedule VI required the generator to declare available capacity and allocate it between the two beneficiaries on a proportionate basis. The parties' correspondence, including earlier acceptance of a 58:42 allocation, supported that construction, and the later settlement did not extinguish the claim for the period in dispute. Compensation for diversion of power could not be refused merely because actual loss had not yet been separately quantified, where the Commission had left loss assessment for later determination. The generator was therefore bound to follow the 58:42 allocation, and compensation for diversion was payable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286960