NDLI: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. Jsw Energy Limited (earlier Known As Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited & Jindal Tractabel Power Company Limited) & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act 1999
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 – s.18, Explanation to s. 19, s.25(3) r/w s.17(1) and proviso to s. 27(2) – Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) – The Act came into force with effect from 01.06.1999 – Under s. 27 of the Act, unless there was a ‘concluded contract’ as on 01.06.1999, the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission was to regulate the tariff – Whether before the Act came into force, there was a concluded contract between the parties, and therefore such a contract could not be unsettled by the regulatory regime under the Act – Held: The parties contemplated a written Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) containing various details apart from the tariff rate and the tenure – The parties were not ad idem as regards the issues which were expressly left open for negotiations – The State Government (GoK) also contemplated ‘finalising’ a PPA – The word ‘finalising’ and the word ‘PPA’, both of which did not take place before 01.06.1999 resulted in a situation where a contract could not be said to be concluded even within the meaning of the proviso to s. 27(2) of the Act – This is not even a case where parties were ad idem on all the essential aspects, which go into the formation of a complex contract as involved in the facts of this case – On facts, there was no concluded contract and what is more, a PPA was not a mere desire but an indispensable requirement to conclude the terms – It is clear as day light that all through the parties undoubtedly contemplated entering into a power purchase agreement – From the subject matter of the contract, the position of the parties, the implications of the working of the contract and more importantly, the intention of the parties, it was clear that there was a concluded contract upon negotiations and correspondence, culminating in the Government Order 12.05.1999 – Even the GO dated 12.05.1999 expressly contemplated only a permission by the GoK to the KEB to finalise “a PPA” for the purchase of surplus power – The word “finalise” in the context of the PPA cannot be played down in the context of the previous correspondence at any rate – It was, in fact, also contemplated that the PPA which was to be finalised must after finalisation be submitted again to the government – GoK was thereafter to grant its approval – This cannot be overlooked.Contract Act, 1872 – s. 10 – It is not essential to form a contract, that it should be in writing – Where a law stipulates that a contract be in writing in which case a contract must be reduced to writing.Contract Act, 1872 – ss. 2 and 10 – Concluded contract – Held: In order that there must be a contract concluded, there must be a proposal made, which must be accepted – There must be consideration for the promise – The proposal must be accepted, which must be communicated – The acceptance must be unqualified – The parties can be said to have entered into a contract or a contract would be said to be concluded only when they are ad idem on all the essential terms of the contract – If the proposals containing the essential terms have been accepted, and the acceptance is communicated and, if the other conditions in s. 2 are complied with, viz., that is there is consideration and the contract is enforceable in law, within the meaning of s. 10, it would lead to the creation of a concluded contract. Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 – proviso to s. 27(2) – Concluded contract within meaning of the proviso to s. 27(2) – Held: The proviso to s. 27(2) when it uses the words ‘contracts concluded’, does not use the words ‘contracts concluded as regards tariffs’ – There are various other aspects about which the parties must be ad idem – The rate, the term and quantum are integrally interconnected with other terms – There cannot be concluded contract without parties being ad idem about those terms.Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 – s. 41 – Appeals against order of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission – Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Commission can file appeal to the High Court, on questions of law arising out of such order – Held: A Right of Appeal is a creature of a Statute – The right can be qualified or conditioned – The ambit of the appellate power is to be discerned from the terms of the Statute – A ‘question of law’ is not the same as a ‘substantial question of law’ – However, when the Statute insists on a ‘question of law’ to maintain an appeal, the Appellate Body stands constrained to that extent – Appeal.Electricity Laws – Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission – The Commission is an Expert Body – Interference with its findings cannot be sustained, to begin with, if it is bereft of reasons – Findings of such a body must receive due deference – Perversity in the sense of findings, which are wholly without basis or material or which no person with the professed skills would arrive at, may merit interference – A finding, which ill squares with a clear statutory injunction, would leave the door ajar for overturning the finding.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1219
Petitioner	Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
Respondent	Jsw Energy Limited (earlier Known As Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited & Jindal Tractabel Power Company Limited) & Ors.
SCR	[2022] 12 S.C.R. 937
Judgement Date	2022-11-22
Case Number	8714

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. Jsw Energy Limited (earlier Known As Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited & Jindal Tractabel Power Company Limited) & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Sri. B. G. Manamohana Priyanka & Ors.

U.p. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

The Tata Power Company Limited Transmission Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.

Tata Power Company Limited Vs. Reliance Energy Limited & Ors.

Punjab State Electriclty Board Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

A.p. Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. M/s. R.v.k. Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Paschimanchal Vidyutvitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/sadarsh Textiles & Anr.

Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation Vs. M/s. Kashi Vishwanath Steel Ltd. & Ors.

Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Reliance Energy Limited and Others

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. Jsw Energy Limited (earlier Known As Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited & Jindal Tractabel Power Company Limited) & Ors.

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. Jsw Energy Limited (earlier Known As Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited & Jindal Tractabel Power Company Limited) & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Sri. B. G. Manamohana Priyanka & Ors.

U.p. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

The Tata Power Company Limited Transmission Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.

Tata Power Company Limited Vs. Reliance Energy Limited & Ors.

Punjab State Electriclty Board Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

A.p. Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. M/s. R.v.k. Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Paschimanchal Vidyutvitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/sadarsh Textiles & Anr.

Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation Vs. M/s. Kashi Vishwanath Steel Ltd. & Ors.

Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Reliance Energy Limited and Others

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. Jsw Energy Limited (earlier Known As Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited & Jindal Tractabel Power Company Limited) & Ors.