Facts
M/s Shree Cement Limited ("Appellant") was the successful bidder for procurement of 500 MW Round-The-Clock (RTC) power for distribution licensees
Source reference: p.3A Letter of Award (LOA) dated 11.11.2017 was issued, allocating 100 MW of power
Source reference: p.3The Appellant commenced supply from its Rajasthan-based generating unit on 16.11.2017
Source reference: p.4On 17.11.2017, the Supreme Court banned the use of Pet-coke in the National Capital Region and certain states, including Rajasthan
Source reference: p.4As the Appellant used Pet-coke, it discontinued supply from 18.11.2017, 23:30 hours
Source reference: p.4The Appellant informed Respondent No. 2 (PCKL) on 17.11.2017, citing force majeure and stating efforts to arrange an alternate source
Source reference: p.4, p.6The Appellant furnished a Contract Performance Guarantee on 21.11.2017
Source reference: p.4executed a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 on 24.11.2017
Source reference: p.4PCKL subsequently claimed liquidated damages ("LD") of Rs. 60,50,077/-, later revised to Rs. 29,72,647/-, for short supply in November 2017
Source reference: p.4-5The Appellant filed a petition (O.P. No. 22 of 2019) before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission ("State Commission") seeking withdrawal of the LD claim and refund
Source reference: p.5The State Commission dismissed the petition, upholding the deduction of LD for 22.11.2017 23.11.2017 and additionally held the Appellant liable for Open Access Charges of Rs. 12,81,0101
Source reference: p.5, p.13Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the present appeal
Source reference: p.5Issues
1. Whether the Appellant could invoke the Force Majeure clause simultaneously with Article 5.1.4 of the PPA for supply from an alternate source
Source reference: p.7, p.92. Whether the Appellant is liable for liquidated damages for non-supply of power from an alternate source for 22.11.2017 and 23.11.2017
Source reference: p.53. Whether the State Commission was justified in imposing liability for Open Access Charges on the Appellant
Source reference: p.13Law Applied
The court applied Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for the appeal jurisdiction
Source reference: p.2It relied on Clause 7.1 and 7.2 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) concerning Force Majeure events and the duty to mitigate
Source reference: p.7-8Clause 5.1.4 of the PPA, pertaining to supply from an alternate source, was also central to the determination of liability
Source reference: p.8The principle of implied waiver, where invoking a contractual remedy inconsistent with another leads to the waiver of the latter, was applied
Source reference: p.9Regulation 5(4) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Sharing of Inter-State Transmission Charges and Losses) Regulations, 2010, regarding PoC charges for Short-Term Open Access transactions, was considered for Open Access charges
Source reference: p.13-14Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the Appellant, by invoking Clause 5.1.4 of the PPA to arrange supply from an alternate source, had effectively elected not to rely on the Force Majeure clause (Clause 7.1)
Source reference: p.9Clause 5.1.4 explicitly applies when the seller is unable to supply power "except due to a Force Majeure Event"
Source reference: p.8This choice constituted an implied waiver of its right to plead Force Majeure, as the two clauses are mutually exclusive
Source reference: p.9Therefore, the State Commission's rejection of the Force Majeure claim was upheld
Source reference: p.9Regarding liquidated damages, the Tribunal noted that for 22.11.2017 and 23.11.2017, the Appellant had not identified an alternate source nor processed an Open Access application, unlike for the period 24.11.2017 to 30.11.2017, where an Open Access application was processed, which led the State Commission to allow "deemed availability" for that later period
Source reference: p.11-12Thus, the communication for 22.11.2017 and 23.11.2017 was not considered a valid or substantiated offer
Source reference: p.11The Tribunal affirmed the State Commission's decision to uphold liquidated damages for non-supply from 19.11.2017 to 23.11.2017
Source reference: p.13As for Open Access Charges, the Tribunal found no specific or categorical direction in the Impugned Order for the Appellant to pay these charges
Source reference: p.14Furthermore, the Respondents had not raised any claim for Open Access Charges either before or after the Impugned Order
Source reference: p.14Therefore, the liability for Open Access Charges could not be sustained
Source reference: p.14Holding
The appeal was partly allowed
The Tribunal upheld the calculation of liquidated damages as determined by the State Commission
Source reference: p.13, p.15However, the Impugned Order was modified by setting aside the liability imposed on the Appellant for Open Access Charges for Rs. 12,81,0101
Source reference: p.14, p.15The Tribunal directed Respondent No. 2 to refund any extra amount withheld on account of liquidated damages, over and above the upheld amount, along with simple interest at the SBI Prime Lending Rate
Source reference: p.15The Appellant was directed to raise an invoice within four weeks, and Respondent No. 2 to make payment within four weeks thereafter
Source reference: p.15Original Court PDF
M/S SHREE CEMENT LIMITEDvsKARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in