Skip to main content

Price Escalation And Change In Foreign Law Cannot Be Considered Force Majuere

In FAO (OS) No. 272/2012, COASTAL ANDHRA POWER LIMITED vs ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD & ORS., Date of decision: 15th January, 2019, the appellant Coastal Andhra Power Ltd had agreed to supply power to Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Co.Ltd(APCPDL) under a PPA. The coal for power generation was to be imported from Indonesia. Meanwhile, there occurred change in Indonesian laws, which led to price rise of coal. In that backdrop, Coastal Andhra said that power generation will not be viable without renegotiation of prices. Not willing to renegotiate prices, APCPDL terminated the contract and sought for damages of Rs.400 crores from Coastal Andhra, for breach of contract.

This led Coastal Andhra to file application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking to restrain APCPDL from invoking the bank guarantee furnished by it for the claim of damages.The single judge initially granted a stay on Mach 20, 2012. Later, this stay was vacated on July 02,2012. Against the vacation of stay, appeal was filed before the Division Bench.

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in  Energy Watchdog v CERC, wherein it was held that an unexpected rise in the price of coal will not absolve the generating companies from performing their part of the contract for the very good reason that when they submitted their bids, this was a risk they knowingly took, decided that in this matter also escalation of price of coal and change in law abroad will not amount to "force majuere" under the agreement, so as to absolve the power generating company from its obligations.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more