TITLE: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED V. RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS..
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1922 OF 2023
DECIDED ON: 9 NOVEMBER 2023
CORAM: JUSTICE DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JUSTICE JB PARDIWALA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Facts of the Case:
The civil appeal before the Supreme Court of India involved a dispute between the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) and Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited (RGPPL) concerning the payment of fixed charges under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The crux of the matter arose from a shortage of domestic gas, prompting RGPPL to enter into a Gas Supply Agreement/Gas Transportation Agreement with GAIL for Recycled Liquid Natural Gas (RLNG). MSEDCL contested the capacity declarations made by RGPPL based on RLNG, arguing that it was not obligated to pay fixed charges due to the absence of its consent. However, both the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) ruled in favor of RGPPL, holding MSEDCL liable to pay the fixed charges based on the declared capacity using RLNG.
Issues Involved:
Whether MSEDCL was absolved of fixed charges under the PPA due to the absence of its consent for capacity declarations based on RLNG. The interpretation of Clause 5.2 of the PPA and its independence from actual energy delivery in determining fixed charges. The impact of the nationwide shortage of domestic gas on RGPPL’s alternative arrangements using RLNG. Whether the court should deviate from the plain terms of the PPA for business efficacy.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
The court conducted a detailed analysis of the terms of the PPA, emphasizing the independence of capacity charges under Clause 5.2 from actual energy delivery. It highlighted the unprecedented nationwide shortage of domestic gas, underscoring the necessity for RGPPL’s alternative arrangements using RLNG. The court stressed the importance of interpreting commercial documents in line with the original intent of the parties and only deviating from plain terms when warranted for business efficacy. Ultimately, the court upheld the rulings of CERC and APTEL, dismissing MSEDCL’s arguments regarding the requirement of consent for capacity declarations based on RLNG. The judgment provided a comprehensive understanding of the dispute, considering both the contractual obligations and the commercial context. It concluded that the execution proceedings before APTEL should continue, with no order as to costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
