APTEL

Trader purely as conduit cannot be held liable for gaming or UI charges relinquished by discoms.

Tata Power Trading Company Limited vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

APTELJUDGMENT: July 15, 20261 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Appellant, a trading licensee, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 06.09.2013 with Karnataka ESCOMs (Respondents 4-8) to supply 57MW of power

Source reference: p. 6

Due to grid disturbances and technical failures, the generator failed to supply the full quantum in late 2013, leading to deviations exceeding 15% of the contracted capacity

Source reference: p. 7

Consequently, the ESCOMs deducted liquidated damages, Unscheduled Interchange (UI) charges, and backup power charges from the Appellant’s invoices, including invoices belonging to subsequent, unrelated PPAs

Source reference: p. 8-10
02

Issues

Whether the Appellant, acting as a trading licensee, can be held liable for Unscheduled Interchange (UI) charges and liquidated damages when it acted as a conduit between the generator and the ESCOMs.

Source reference: no citation
03

Law Applied

Electricity Act, 2003 regarding the regulatory framework for trading licensees and power purchase agreements.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The court examined the back-to-back nature of the arrangement where the Appellant served as a conduit for the power supply from the generator to the ESCOMs.

Source reference: no citation
05

Holding

A trader purely as a conduit cannot be held liable for gaming or UI charges relinquished by discoms.
APTEL

Original Court PDF

Tata Power Trading Company LimitedvsKarnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

APTEL · July 15, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment