PPA approval delay constitutes force majeure despite lack of formal notice where knowledge is imputed to respondents.

The Appellant, a solar power developer, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Respondent No. 2 (PSPCL) on March 31, 2015, to establish 10 MW of rooftop solar projects

The PPA required commissioning within 10 months of execution

However, the PPA was only approved by the Regulatory Commission on May 11, 2015

Subsequent delays occurred due to site identification disputes, technical concurrences, and grid feasibility clearances, which were finalized between October and December 2015

The Appellant sought an extension of the Scheduled Commercial Operation Date (SCOD) and the original tariff of Rs. 7.59/kWh, citing Force Majeure events

The State Commission condoned only 29 days of delay, leading to a tariff reduction to Rs. 5.09/kWh

The court applied Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which empowers State Commissions to regulate electricity procurement and price, and Regulation 46 of the PSERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005, which mandates Commission approval for long-term power purchase commitments

The tribunal relied on Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Ltd. (2009) regarding the necessity of Commission approval for PPAs to be enforceable

Regarding Force Majeure notices, the court considered the strict compliance rule established in Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Sai Sudhir Pvt. Ltd. (2025), which dictates that notice is a condition precedent unless the counterparty has inherent knowledge of the event

The Tribunal reasoned that a PPA is "only a piece of paper" until approved by the Commission; thus, the "Effective Date" for calculating commissioning timelines must be the date of approval (May 11, 2015) rather than the date of signing (March 31, 2015)

Although the Appellant failed to issue a formal Force Majeure notice for this 41-day delay, the Tribunal carved out an exception: because the duty to seek PPA approval lay with the Respondent and the facts were within the Respondent's direct knowledge, a formal notice was a mere formality

Conversely, the Tribunal upheld the Commission's calculation of 21–29 days of delay for grid connectivity, finding the timeline for administrative concurrence reasonable

Finally, the claim regarding the "Jat agitation" was rejected because it was an external event requiring strict adherence to the contractual notice period under Article 10.4 of the IA, which the Appellant failed to provide

The findings regarding grid connectivity delays were affirmed, while the claim for the Jat agitation was dismissed. The case was remanded to the Commission to recompute the delay for each of the nine project sites by incorporating the 41-day credit and to determine the resulting tariff accordingly