Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)
Punjab Energy Development Agency ... vs Punjab State Electricity Regulatory ... on 18 May, 2026 cites

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply ... vs Saisudhir Energy (Chitradurga) Pvt. ... on 21 March, 2018

In so far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company case (supra) is concerned, no force majeure notice had ever been issued by the affected party and accordingly, it was held by the Apex Court that requirement of issuance of force majeure notice within the stipulated time is not merely directory but is a condition precedent for invoking the force majeure clause. However, in that case also the force majeure events upon which the affected party had based its claims, were not of such nature about which the counter party could be attributed knowledge and awareness in spite of non- service of the force majeure notice.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Punjab State Electricity Regulatory ... on 29 April, 2022

16. It is also submitted that the legal position regarding the mandatory nature of force majeure notice requirements and the consequences of non-compliance stands conclusively settled by binding precedents of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Tribunal, in "Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission", while interpreting a notice clause materially similar to the present case, categorically held that in the absence of issuance of a force majeure notice in accordance with the contractual stipulation, no extension of the commissioning period or protection from contractual consequences can be granted.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Earth Solar Private Limited vs Punjab State Electricity Regulatory ... on 11 January, 2019

In the other case, "Earth Solar Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors." 2019 SCC OnLine APTEL 41, the Tribunal observed that contractual provision with regard to the rendering of Force Majeure Notice was within 5 days of Force Majeure Event, however, in the present case the FM notice was served after the delay of 150 days as contrary to the Implementation Agreement read with PPA and hence, disqualified to avail the benefits on the ground of Force Majeure. The judgments relied by the Appellant deals with the issuance of a Force Majeure notice in accordance with the contractual stipulation is mandatory and that, in the absence thereof, the party claiming Force Majeure relief would not ordinarily be entitled to the benefit of such claim.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Savita Chemicals (Pvt) Ltd vs Dyes & Chemical Workers Union & Anr on 11 December, 1998

(iii) issuance of such notice as soon as reasonably practicable after its occurrence, but in any event not later than five (5) days from the date on which the party became aware of its commencement or its effect on the party. In this context it is submitted that the letter dated 12.05.2015 issued by Respondent No. 3 to the Appellant, followed by the meeting dated 14.05.2015 attended by the Appellant and Respondent No.2, satisfies the essential ingredients of Article 10.4 of the IA, inasmuch as a written notice was issued to the parties setting out the particulars of the alleged force majeure events. Respondent No. 3 had, in fact, apprised the Appellant of the requirement of obtaining the grid feasibility letter as early as 11.03.2015 and again on 04.05.2015, and upon PSPCL informing for the first time on 06.05.2015 regarding connectivity to the 132/220 kV substation same was communicated on 12.05.2015 within five (5) days thereof, thereby purportedly satisfying the timeline prescribed under Article 10.4. As regards the objection that the letter dated 12.05.2015 was not expressly styled as a "Force Majeure Notice," Respondent No. 3 places reliance on the principle that it is the substance and not the nomenclature of a document which determines its true character, and further relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Savita Chemicals v. Dyes and Chemical Workers' Union and Anr." (1999) 2 SCC 143, wherein it was held that where the contents of a notice substantively convey the grievance, strict adherence to the prescribed form is not mandatory even if such form is contemplated under the statute. Accordingly, the letter dated 12.05.2015 issued by Respondent No. 3, whereby the Appellant was duly informed of the alleged Force Majeure event, ought to be treated as a valid Force Majeure notice in compliance with Article 10.4 of the IA, particularly when PEDA had been kept apprised since 11.03.2015 regarding the issue of grid feasibility at the 66 kV level. It is further submitted that the term "notice" has been interpreted to mean communication of information not previously within the knowledge of the Page 14 of 34 Judgement in Appeal Nos.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 45 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1   2 Next