<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (7) TMI 2077 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465660</link>
    <description>An express contractual termination clause cannot be narrowed by implying a requirement that both parties agree on breach, where the plain text allows termination by either party on non-fulfilment of conditions subsequent. The Court gave effect to the specific clause requiring execution of a fuel supply agreement within time and held that the termination notice was valid, because reading in a prior mutual agreement on default would rewrite the contract and make the clause redundant. After upholding termination, the tariff payable post-termination was left to the statutory regulatory mechanism, with the dispute remitted to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission for determination and related adjustments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 May 2026 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 2077 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465660</link>
      <description>An express contractual termination clause cannot be narrowed by implying a requirement that both parties agree on breach, where the plain text allows termination by either party on non-fulfilment of conditions subsequent. The Court gave effect to the specific clause requiring execution of a fuel supply agreement within time and held that the termination notice was valid, because reading in a prior mutual agreement on default would rewrite the contract and make the clause redundant. After upholding termination, the tariff payable post-termination was left to the statutory regulatory mechanism, with the dispute remitted to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission for determination and related adjustments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>