https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300866 A change in RBI lending methodology from PLR to Base Rate and MCLR did not amount to a contractual change in law under the power purchase agreements, because late payment surcharge remained tied to the continuing SBI prime lending rate benchmark and the contracts contemplated a substitute only if that benchmark became unavailable. The Court held that the appellant was effectively seeking rewriting of the contract, which was impermissible. It also held that an appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 lies only on a substantial question of law, so concurrent factual findings by the regulatory commission and the appellate tribunal could not be reopened on reappraisal of evidence. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Feb 2022 20:23:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300866 A change in RBI lending methodology from PLR to Base Rate and MCLR did not amount to a contractual change in law under the power purchase agreements, because late payment surcharge remained tied to the continuing SBI prime lending rate benchmark and the contracts contemplated a substitute only if that benchmark became unavailable. The Court held that the appellant was effectively seeking rewriting of the contract, which was impermissible. It also held that an appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 lies only on a substantial question of law, so concurrent factual findings by the regulatory commission and the appellate tribunal could not be reopened on reappraisal of evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300866