APTEL
Contract LawAdministrative and Public Law

COVID-19 lockdown qualifies as force majeure for UP transmission project, APTEL upholds COD extension

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors vs Obra-C Badaun Transmission Limited & Ors

APTELJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
COVID-19 lockdown qualifies as force majeure for UP transmission project, APTEL upholds COD extension. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors vs Obra-C Badaun Transmission Limited & Ors. APTEL. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Obra-C Badaun Transmission Limited (OBTL), an intra-State transmission licensee, sought an extension of the Scheduled Commercial Operation Date (SCOD) for elements of its project, relying on COVID-19-related force majeure.

Source reference: pp. 3–10, 12–15

The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission allowed the extension, and the distribution licensees appealed, arguing that the pandemic had not affected project progress and that the Commission had not justified the extension on a day-for-day basis.

Source reference: pp. 3–10, 12–15
02

Issues

Whether the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown constituted a force majeure event under the TSA, entitling OBTL to an extension of the project’s SCOD.

Source reference: p. 9, para. 11
03

Law Applied

Article 4.4.2 of the TSA provides that where a project element cannot be commissioned by its SCOD due to a force majeure event under Article 11, the SCOD is extended on a day-for-day basis, subject to a maximum of 180 days.

Source reference: pp. 21–22, paras. 22–23

Article 11.3 defines force majeure as an event or circumstance beyond the affected party’s reasonable control that wholly or partly prevents, or unavoidably delays, performance, and includes specified natural and non-natural events; Article 11.4 sets out exclusions.

Source reference: pp. 23–27, paras. 24–25

The Tribunal treated the pandemic’s effects, including disruption to work and movement resulting from government restrictions, as capable of qualifying under Article 11.3, and specifically concluded that COVID-19 fell within Article 11.3(b)(ii).

Source reference: pp. 27–28, para. 25; p. 34, para. 32
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that OBTL had repeatedly notified the licensees of COVID-19-related effects on construction and sought SCOD extensions, without receiving responses to those notices.

Source reference: pp. 28–29, 34, paras. 27, 32

It rejected the argument that OBTL’s September 2020 notice forecasting readiness by the original SCOD amounted to an admission that the project was unaffected: that notice had to be read alongside OBTL’s later notice describing continuing restrictions and project impacts.

Source reference: pp. 29–32, paras. 28–30

The Tribunal also relied on UPPCL’s own grant of a three-month extension and on governmental recognition of COVID-19’s impact on transmission projects.

Source reference: pp. 19–20, 28, 32–34, paras. 20, 26, 31–32

Although the relevant Ministry of Power notifications applied to inter-State projects, the Tribunal held that this did not establish that COVID-19 was not a force majeure event for an intra-State project.

Source reference: pp. 19–20, 28, 32–34, paras. 20, 26, 31–32
05

Holding

The Tribunal held that COVID-19 and the associated restrictions constituted a force majeure event under the TSA and that the Commission had not erred in allowing the SCOD extension for the relevant project elements.

It dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit and disposed of the pending interlocutory applications.

Source reference: p. 34, para. 33
06

Acts & Sections Cited

4 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Electricity Act, 20033

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

APTEL

Original Court PDF

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & OrsvsObra-C Badaun Transmission Limited & Ors

APTEL · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment