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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

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