CERC Orders Refund of ₹711.44 Crore to Haryana Discoms in Transmission Charges Dispute; Recognises Entitlement to Interest

In an order dated 28.02.2026, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), on remand, has ruled in favour of the Haryana Discoms (UHBVNL and DHBVNL, through HPPC), directing refund of ₹711.44 crore along with applicable interest, in relation to transmission charges wrongly levied by Grid India.

This order marks the culmination of prolonged litigation spanning multiple rounds before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) and the CERC, concerning the classification and charging of the 400 kV IGSTPS–Daulatabad transmission line.

1. Recognition of Intra-State Nature of Transmission Line

At the core of the dispute was whether the 400 kV transmission line from Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Station (IGSTPS) to Daulatabad constituted an   transmission system (ISTS) or an intra-state line.

Reaffirming its earlier findings, the CERC held that the line is an intra-state transmission line and therefore not subject to ISTS charges under the PoC (Point of Connection) mechanism.

This classification formed the legal basis for holding that the levy of interstate transmission charges on Haryana Discoms was not sustainable.

2. Refund Limited to Period Within Limitation

Following remand by APTEL, the CERC confined the relief to the legally permissible period from 03.06.2014 to 04.05.2018, in line with the application of limitation principles to adjudicatory proceedings.

The Tribunal had clarified that claims prior to June 2014 were time-barred, while claims within the three-year window were maintainable.

3. Quantification of Refund and Inclusion of April 2018

A key issue before the Commission was the computation of the refund amount.

• The parties reconciled a principal sum of ₹691.34 crore for June 2014 to March 2018
• The Petitioners claimed an additional amount for April 2018

Rejecting CTUIL’s objection, the CERC held that the Petitioners were entitled to refund for April 2018 as well, bringing the total principal refund to ₹711.44 crore.

The Commission specifically noted that billing for April 2018 continued to include LTA quantum attributable to Haryana’s share, thereby warranting refund.

4. Directions for Recovery and Adjustment Mechanism

The CERC permitted phased recovery of the refund amount by the Petitioners:

• ₹483.50 crore (already allowed earlier in instalments)
• ₹207.84 crore (balance recovery in further instalments)
• Additional ₹20.10 crore (pertaining to April 2018)

These recoveries are to be adjusted through charges collected under the applicable Sharing Regulations.

5. Entitlement to Interest and Restitution

In line with APTEL’s directions, the CERC recognised that the Petitioners are entitled to interest/carrying cost as a measure of restitution for amounts illegally recovered.

The Commission is required to determine:

• Whether interest should be simple or compound
• The applicable rate of interest
• The methodology of computation (including rests, if compound)

This stems from APTEL’s finding that recovery of ISTS charges on an intra-State line was unlawful, thereby triggering restitutionary principles.

6. Consumer Adjustment Through Tariff Mechanism

The Commission recorded that the Haryana Discoms had passed on these charges to consumers.

Accordingly, any refund (principal and interest) is required to be adjusted in future tariff determination, ensuring that the ultimate benefit flows to end consumers.

 

Judgement Link

Read More

APTEL rules on Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003: No Automatic Reference to Arbitration in Composite PPA Disputes

In a landmark judgment dated 25.02.2026, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Tribunal) has ruled in favour of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and the Haryana Discoms (UHBVNL and DHBVNL, through HPPC), setting aside the order passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC).

The CERC, in its common order dated 19.11.2025, had directed that the disputes between the procurers and Tata Power Company Limited (TPCL) regarding the short-supply of contracted electricity be mandatorily resolved through arbitration. By allowing Appeal Nos. 371 and 400 of 2025 filed by the Haryana Utilities and PSPCL respectively, the Appellate Tribunal has reaffirmed the exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Regulatory Commissions over matters impacting public interest and tariff. 

1. Impermissibility of Splitting Causes of Action

One of the central issues in the appeals filed by PSPCL and HPPC was the CERC’s erroneous decision to bifurcate their petitions. Both utilities had sought compensation jointly and severally against TPCL and the Western Regional Load Despatch Centre (WRLDC), a statutory body. PSPCL and HPPC’s grievance was that while TPCL illegally ceased generating and supplying their contracted capacities (475 MW for PSPCL and 380 MW for HPPC), WRLDC failed in its statutory duty under Section 28 of the Electricity Act to ensure proportionate scheduling.

The CERC had attempted to refer the dispute against TPCL to arbitration, while leaving the procurers to file separate petitions against WRLDC.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sukanya Holdings and Vidya Drolia, the Appellate Tribunal held that Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit the bifurcation of a cause of action or the splitting of a suit between parties to an arbitration agreement (TPCL) and non-parties (WRLDC). Because WRLDC discharges statutory functions making disputes against it non-arbitrable, and since the monetary claims were joint and several against TPCL and WRLDC. 

2. Strict Compliance with Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

The Appellate Tribunal also ruled on the procedural mandates of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “1996 Act”). The Appellate Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 8(1) of the 1996 Act apply strictly to proceedings before the CERC.

Under Section 8(1), a party seeking to invoke arbitration must apply not later than the date of submitting its first statement on the substance of the dispute. In the present batch of cases, TPCL completely failed to make such an application before filing its reply to the petitions instituted by PSPCL and HPPC. Furthermore, TPCL had even filed its own independent petition before the CERC. The Appellate Tribunal held that non-compliance with the mandatory timeline under Section 8(1) vitiated the CERC’s decision to refer the dispute to arbitration.

3. CERC cannot refer a dispute to Arbitration if it lacks Adjudicatory Jurisdiction

The CERC had held that because the disputes were “non-tariff” contractual breaches, it lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate them, and was therefore “bound” to refer them to arbitration under the second limb of Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act.

The Appellate Tribunal rejected the CERC’s view that it could refer disputes to arbitration merely because it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate them holding that the power to refer a dispute to arbitration is not independent of the power to adjudicate. Reaffirming the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in GUVNL v. Essar, APTEL noted that the word “and” in Section 79(1)(f) must be read as “or”. This grants the CERC the discretion to eitheradjudicate a dispute or refer it to arbitration.

The Appellate Tribunal established that the CERC can only refer those disputes to arbitration which it is legally empowered to adjudicate under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 79(1). If the CERC lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute, it simultaneously lacks the jurisdiction to refer that very dispute to arbitration.

4. Tariff and Regulatory Disputes are Non-Arbitrable

The Appellate Tribunal reiterated that the Electricity Act is a special enactment designed to protect public interest and consumers. Any dispute that concerns the regulatory functions of the Commission, or impacts the tariff of a generating company (either directly or indirectly), must be exclusively adjudicated by the Regulatory Commissions and cannot be relegated to a private Arbitral Tribunal.

By setting aside the CERC’s order dated 19.11.2025, the Appellate Tribunal has restored all petitions to CERC. The CERC is now directed to examine whether the subject matter of the disputes falls within the ambit of Section 79(1)(b) of the Electricity Act. If the disputes impact tariff or touch upon regulatory functions, the CERC is mandated to adjudicate them itself.

The judgment highlights the statutory limits on arbitral reference under Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and clarifies the interface between the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Electricity Act, 2003, reinforcing the primacy of regulatory adjudication in statutory disputes.

Judgment Link

Read More

Types of Employment in India: How the Four Labour Codes Re-shape Work, Rights & Compliance

India’s employment framework has undergone a structural transformation with the enactment of the Labour Codes 2020. These Codes consolidate multiple legacy labour laws and redefine the types of employment in India, bringing clarity to traditional roles while formally recognising emerging work models such as fixed-term employment in India and gig/platform work.

For businesses, HR leaders, compliance professionals, and workers alike, understanding the interaction between the Code on Wages, Industrial Relations Code, OSH Code, and Code on Social Security is critical for lawful and sustainable workforce management.

The Four Labour Codes: The Foundation of Modern Employment Law

India’s labour reform rests on four central statutes:

• Code on Wages, 2019
  Standardizes wage definitions, minimum wages, and payment rules.
  
• Industrial Relations Code, 2020
  Governs trade unions, dispute resolution, standing orders, retrenchment, and recognizes fixed-term employment.
  
• Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020
  Consolidates workplace safety, welfare, and working condition laws.
  
• Code on Social Security, 2020
  Creates a unified framework for social security, including coverage for gig and platform workers.

Together, these laws redefine compliance obligations across all recognized employment structures in India.

1. Permanent Employment in India

Permanent employment continues to represent the traditional employer and employee relationship, characterized by open-ended service and long-term engagement.

Under the Code on Wages, 2019, all employees are entitled to statutory minimum wages and protection against unauthorized deductions. The OSH Code ensures workplace safety, regulated working hours, and welfare facilities. Meanwhile, the Code on Social Security, 2020 governs provident fund, employee state insurance, gratuity, and related social security contributions where thresholds are met.

Compliance focus in Permanent Employment aligns on uniform wage definition, timely payment of wages, statutory contributions (PF/ESI) and workplace safety documentation.

For employers, misclassification or wage structuring contrary to the statutory definition of “wages” can trigger compliance exposure under the Labour Codes 2020 framework.

2. Fixed-Term Employment in India: Parity and Pro-Rata Benefits

One of the most significant reforms introduced under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is the formal recognition of fixed-term employment in India.

A fixed-term employee is engaged through a written contract for a specified duration. However, unlike earlier contractual engagements that often resulted in benefit disparities, the IR Code mandates parity.

Key principles here align on equal wages and benefits for work of similar nature, eligibility for statutory benefits on par with permanent employees and pro-rata gratuity eligibility after one year of service under the Code on Social Security, 2020.

This development prevents the misuse of fixed-term contracts to dilute employee rights. Employers must ensure that fixed-term employees receive the same statutory protections as permanent staff performing comparable duties.

The introduction of pro-rata gratuity after one year significantly alters workforce cost calculations. Companies engaging seasonal, project-based, or industry-specific talent must now budget for gratuity liabilities from year one, marking a decisive shift in India’s labour law landscape.

3. Gig Workers and Platform Workers: Social Security Recognition

India’s digital economy has led to a rise in app-based and independent work arrangements. The Code on Social Security, 2020 is the first central legislation to formally define and recognise:

• Gig workers
• Platform workers

This reform directly addresses the growing demand for gig workers social security in India.

While gig workers are not automatically classified as traditional employees, the Code empowers the government to design welfare schemes covering life insurance, health benefits, maternity support, old-age protection, and other social security measures.

Implications for Businesses

Platforms facilitating work must anticipate; registration obligations, contribution requirements (as may be prescribed) and record-keeping mandates.

For workers, this marks the first statutory recognition of their role in India’s employment ecosystem.

4. Contract Labour in India

Contract labour arrangements remain prevalent across infrastructure, manufacturing, services, and logistics sectors.

Under the consolidated Labour Codes 2020 structure:

• Contractors remain primarily responsible for wage payments.
• Principal employers must ensure contractor compliance.
• Licensing and record-keeping obligations continue under unified regulatory mechanisms.

Failure to supervise contractor compliance may expose principal employers to secondary liability.

Cross-Cutting Protections Across All Employment Types in India

One of the most consequential outcomes of the Labour Codes 2020 is that statutory protections are no longer confined to rigid or traditional employer–employee relationships. Instead, the modern legal framework governing the types of employment in India adopts a universal, principle-based approach, ensuring that core rights and obligations apply across permanent, fixed-term, contract, and gig/platform work arrangements.

1. Universal Wage Protection under the Code on Wages, 2019

The Code on Wages establishes a uniform and expansive wage regime applicable to all employees, irrespective of the nature of employment or sector. It standardises the definition of “wages” to curb artificial wage structuring and ensures:

• Applicability of minimum wages across organised and unorganised sectors
• Statutory timelines for payment of wages
• Restrictions on unauthorised deductions
• Equal remuneration principles for work of similar nature

This universality is particularly significant for fixed-term employment in India and contract labour, where wage disparities were historically common. By anchoring wage protection to the status of being employed rather than the form of contract, the Code strengthens income security across employment categories.

2. Workplace Safety and Welfare under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020

The OSH Code consolidates multiple safety and welfare statutes into a single framework and applies broadly to establishments employing workers across different arrangements. Its cross-cutting impact includes:

• Uniform standards for workplace safety and health
• Regulation of working hours, leave, and rest intervals
• Mandatory welfare facilities (canteens, first aid, sanitation, etc., subject to thresholds)
• Employer duties extending to contract and fixed-term workers

Crucially, the OSH Code reinforces that safety obligations are non-negotiable, regardless of whether a worker is permanent, contractual, or engaged for a fixed duration. This ensures that flexibility in hiring does not dilute baseline occupational protections.

3. Dispute Resolution and Employment Stability under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020

The Industrial Relations Code provides a consolidated mechanism for resolving employment disputes across establishments and employment models. Its protections cut across employment types by:

• Standardising standing orders and service conditions
• Providing structured dispute resolution and conciliation mechanisms
• Regulating retrenchment, lay-off, and closure procedures
• Mandating parity of conditions for fixed-term employees

For employers, this means that workforce flexibility must operate within predictable legal boundaries. For employees, including those under fixed-term employment in India, it offers continuity of rights and access to formal redressal mechanisms in case of termination or service disputes.

4. Expanding Social Protection under the Code on Social Security, 2020

The Code on Social Security represents a paradigm shift by extending the idea of social protection beyond traditional employment. Its cross-cutting relevance lies in:

• Consolidation of provident fund, ESI, gratuity, and maternity benefits
• Introduction of pro-rata gratuity for fixed-term employees after one year
• Statutory recognition of gig and platform workers
• Enabling framework for gig workers social security in India through government-notified schemes

While coverage levels and contribution structures may vary by category, the Code establishes social security as a universal objective rather than a privilege tied only to permanent employment.

Taken together, these cross-cutting protections reduce legislative fragmentation that previously required employers to navigate dozens of overlapping statutes. For businesses, this demands careful workforce classification, wage structuring, and benefit planning. For workers, it ensures that changing modes of employment do not result in erosion of fundamental labour rights.

Key Compliance Considerations for Employers

To remain compliant under the Labour Codes 2020 regime, employers should:

1. Clearly classify employment types in written contracts.
2. Align wage structures with statutory definitions.
3. Ensure parity obligations for fixed-term employment in India.
4. Account for pro-rata gratuity liabilities.
5. Monitor evolving rules relating to gig workers social security India.
6. Conduct periodic compliance audits across all workforce categories.

Proactive legal structuring is now essential, particularly in industries relying on flexible or non-standard workforce models.

Conclusion

The evolution of the types of employment in India mirrors the country’s economic transformation and rapid digital expansion, with the Labour Codes 2020 fundamentally reshaping how work, rights, and compliance are understood. Through these reforms, India has standardised wage protection under a unified legal framework, strengthened workplace safety and welfare obligations, ensured statutory parity in fixed-term employment in India, and, for the first time, formally recognised gig and platform workers within an enabling social security regime.

For employers, this shift brings greater legal clarity alongside heightened accountability in workforce structuring and compliance, while for workers it marks a clear expansion of statutory protection across both traditional and emerging forms of employment. In this evolving labour regime, a clear understanding of permanent, fixed-term, gig/platform, and contract labour arrangements is now indispensable for lawful, sustainable, and future-ready workforce management in India.

 

Read More

APTEL Reaffirms Statutory Primacy: Relinquishment Charges Upheld Despite Force Majeure

The dispute centred around the grant of Long-Term Access (‘LTA’) and the execution of a Bulk Power Transmission Agreement (‘BPTA’) between Aryan Renewable Energy Private Limited (‘Aryan Renewable’) and Central Transmission Utility (‘CTU’) for evacuation of power from Aryan Renewable’s proposed 1200 MW thermal power project at Amelia, Madhya Pradesh.

Background

Aryan Renewable proposed to set up a 1200 MW thermal power project in Madhya Pradesh and was granted LTA for the evacuation of power through the inter-State transmission system. Pursuant to the grant of LTA, a BPTA was executed, and the Appellant furnished a bank guarantee towards its transmission obligations.

Subsequently, the Central Water Commission declined to grant the No-Objection Certificate for water drawal, rendering the project non-implementable. Aryan Renewable contended that this constituted a force majeure event and that no unit of the generating station ever achieved commercial operation.

Thereafter, the bank guarantee submitted by Aryan Renewable were invoked, and the Central Electricity Regulation Commission (‘CERC’), vide the Impugned Order, held that Aryan Renewable remained liable to pay transmission and relinquishment charges under Regulation 18 of the Connectivity Regulations, 2009. Aggrieved, Aryan Renewable preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal.

Issues Framed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal

1. Whether Regulation 18 of the Connectivity Regulations, 2009 applies to a “zero-day failure” case, where LTA was never availed due to Force Majeure?
2. Whether binding precedent by this Hon’ble Tribunal exists on the above
3. Whether independently of precedent, the text of Regulation 18 contains a casus omissus regarding zero-use scenarios due to force majeure events, which is governed exclusively by the BPTA
4. Whether Force Majeure under the BPTA overrides the statutory obligation to pay relinquishment charges under Regulation 18?

Analysis

Issue 1: Applicability of Regulation 18 to “zero-day failure” 

1(a): Whether binding precedent exists

Aryan Renewable’s case primarily rests on Brahmani Thermal Power Private Limited v. CERC & Ors. passed by the Appellate Tribunal [Judgement dated 20.03.2025], where Regulation 18 was interpreted as—

(i) it applies solely to voluntary relinquishment of LTA “out of its wish”, having “no application” to compulsory exits due to unforeseeable force majeure events beyond control; 

(ii) it presupposes actual stranded transmission capacity from such relinquishment, which is absent if lines are not commissioned or are utilised by others; and 

(iii) LTA granted to generators activates only post-commercial operation, so no transmission charges liability arises where force majeure prevents project establishment altogether.

Aryan Renewable also relied on PEL Power Ltd. v. CERC and Himachal Sorang Power Pvt. Ltd. v. CERC, arguing that these decisions collectively constitute binding precedent excluding ‘zero-use’ cases from the scope of Regulation 18. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal rejected this submission. It noted that the judgments relied upon did not consider the full statutory framework of the Connectivity Regulations, 2009, particularly the interrelationship between Regulations 14, 15 and 18. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that the Brahmanijudgment impermissibly read additional words into Regulation 18 by restricting its application to voluntary relinquishment alone, contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal reiterated that a judgment is binding only for what it actually decides, and observations made without consideration of relevant statutory provisions do not qualify. 

1(b): Whether the text of Regulation 18 contains a casus omissus

Independently, Aryan Renewable contended that Regulation 18 uses the phrase “have availed access rights” in both its categories, implying the provision applies only where access has been operationalised, and that a zero-use case therefore, falls outside its scope as a casus omissus.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal rejected this contention. Through a harmonised reading of the definitions of ‘LTA’ and “long-term customer” under the Connectivity Regulations, 2009, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that the right to use the inter-State transmission system is conferred upon grant of LTA by the CTU, which is thereafter formalised through execution of the BPTA under Regulation 15. Regulation 14 was construed to distinguish between the grant of access and the date from which such access becomes operational.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that where access is relinquished after grant but before commissioning, the period of utilisation is necessarily zero years, which squarely falls within Regulation 18(1)(b), applicable to customers who have not availed access rights for at least twelve years. Consequently, the zero-day failure scenario is not an omitted case under the Regulations, and the plea of casus omissus was found to be without merit.

2. Whether Force Majeure under the BPTA overrides the statutory obligation to pay relinquishment charges under Regulation 18

Aryan Renewable argued that Clause of the BPTA dealing with force majeure operates as an overriding provision absolving it from all liabilities, including relinquishment charges. TheHon’ble Appellate Tribunal rejected this submission by emphasising the primacy of statutory regulations over contractual arrangements.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PTC India Ltd. v. CERC to reiterate that regulations framed under Section 178 of the Electricity Act, 2003, have the force of subordinate legislation and override contractual provisions.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal further held that Clause of the BPTA merely exempts parties from claims for loss or damage arising from force majeure and does not extend to statutory transmission or relinquishment charges, which form part of a pooled, non-discriminatory transmission framework. Transmission charges are not payable to CTU alone but are shared among Designated ISTS Customers under the Sharing Regulations, and therefore cannot be characterised as contractual damages.

In the absence of a force majeure exception in Regulation 18 itself, and given the statutory treatment of the Connectivity Regulations, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal concluded that Clauses of the BPTA cannot override the obligation to pay relinquishment charges under Regulation 18(1)(b). The appeal was therefore, dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal judgment placed an emphasis on the statutory nature of the Connectivity Regulations 2009, making it clear that they were not to be superseded by the BPTA, and that there was no cassus omissus in Regulation 18 underlining the importance of construing the same in a harmonious matter.

Judgment Link

Read More

Sanctity Of The Bidding Documents And The Tariff Incorporated In The Ppa In Cases Where Accelerated Depreciation Has Been Availed By The Generator

The dispute revolves around the nature of depreciation availed by Mokia Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. (“Appellant”) and its consequent impact on tariff charged as per the Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) which was executed following a Request for Proposal (“RfP”) and Competitive Bidding Process. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal vide its Judgement dated 08.01.2026 in Appeal 323 of 2025 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and held that tariff has to necessarily be reduced on availment of Accelerated Depreciation. 

Background

In 2013, a RfP was issued by Punjab Electricity Development Agency (“PEDA”) where it was stipulated that if at any stage it is found that project availing normal rate of depreciation is claiming Accelerated Depreciation, then tariff would be revised as per the Punjab State Electricity Regulation Commission (“PSERC”) tariff applicable for Accelerated Depreciation, with effect from the date of commissioning.

The Appellant was one of the successful bidders and had declared that it will avail for normal rate of depreciation. Consequently, the Appellant and Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (“PSPCL”) entered into a PPA. However, later it was discovered that the Appellant was availing Accelerated Depreciation and, consequently PSPCL issued a notice of demand for reducing the applicable tariff. The Appellant had furnished a specific undertaking before signing the PPA that the Appellant will not avail Accelerated Depreciation.

Issues Framed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal

1. Whether the rate of depreciation, i.e. 80% claimed by the Appellant constitutes as Accelerated Depreciation?
2. Assuming the Appellant had claimed accelerated depreciation, whether PSPCL can revise the tariff in the absence of a specific provision in the PPA? 
3. Whether PSPCL can direct the Appellant to pass on or refund any amount in the absence of any financial benefit having accrued to it?

Analysis

Issue 1: Accelerated Depreciation

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal examined the scheme of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) and noted that it provides two alternative depreciation regimes. Depreciation under Section 32(1)(i), read with Appendix IA and Rule 5(1A) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“IT Rules”), applies the straight-line method and prescribes a rate of 7.69% for solar power generating systems. In contrast, depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii), read with Appendix I and Rule 5(1) of the IT Rules, follows the written down value method and permits a substantially higher rate of depreciation of 80%/40%.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that the depreciation regime yielding higher depreciation in the initial years necessarily constitutes “accelerated depreciation”, and the absence of the express term in Section 32(1)(ii) does not alter its substantive character. Since the Appellant admittedly claimed depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) at the rate of 80%/40%, it was rightly held to have availed accelerated depreciation.

Issue 2: Entire Agreement Clause in the PPA

In so far as arguments of the Appellant concerning “entire agreement” clause in the PPA, theHon’ble Appellate Tribunal emphasised that tariff is not a standalone numerical figure and cannot be read in isolation. It is inextricably linked to the competitive bidding process conducted pursuant to the RfP, and is therefore inherently subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal noted that the Preamble to the PPA expressly recognises the Implementation Agreement (“IA”), which unequivocally binds the Company to act in accordance with the terms of the RfP. In light of this contractual framework, it was held that the IA forms an inseparable part of the PPA, thereby binding the Appellant to the conditions of the RfP notwithstanding the presence of an “entire agreement” clause.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal further rejected the Appellant’s contention that the Undertaking, whereby it committed to avail only normal depreciation, ought to be read down in the event of inconsistency with the PPA. It was held that such an undertaking cannot be rendered redundant merely because the consequences of its breach were not expressly restated in the PPA. In the event of such a lacuna, the consequences must necessarily be imported from the bidding documents, which constitute the foundation of the contractual relationship.

Issue 3: Benefit Accrued on account of Accelerated Depreciation

The Appellant contended that even if it were held to have availed accelerated depreciation, no benefit was required to be passed on since it was a loss-making entity and had derived no actual financial gain. This contention was rejected on the ground that the accrual of benefit was immaterial. The RfP and the tariff determined by PSERC expressly provided for differential tariffs depending on whether accelerated depreciation was availed, irrespective of the generator’s profitability. Consequently, the tariff was required to be revised in accordance with the RfP, and the question of whether the Appellant had actually benefited from accelerated depreciation was held to be irrelevant.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal’s judgment underscores that generators are bound by their undertakings. It further reiterates the need for harmonious construction of contractual documents and affirms that tariff revision will follow in case the generators resile on their commitment to avail normal depreciation, independent of any actual benefit accrued by the generator.

Judgement Link

Read More

Employment Contracts in India: Key Clauses That Protect Employers

Why Employment Contracts Matter More Than Ever?

In India, employment relationships are often mistakenly viewed as being governed primarily by labour statutes. In reality, the employment contract in India is the first and most critical legal instrument that defines rights, obligations, and risk allocation between employer and employee. When properly drafted, an employment contract serves as a powerful risk-management tool and a strong line of defence for employers.

With rising employee litigation, heightened data protection concerns, increased instances of moonlighting, and closer regulatory scrutiny, generic appointment letters are no longer sufficient. Employers today require employer-friendly employment contracts that are customised, legally sound, and carefully aligned with Indian labour and employment laws.

This article analyses the most important employment agreement clauses that protect employers, explains their legal relevance, and highlights best practices to ensure an enforceable employment contract in India.

Appointment and Scope of Employment Clause

The appointment and scope of employment clause establishes the foundation of the employment relationship. It defines the employee’s designation, reporting structure, and core responsibilities, thereby eliminating ambiguity from the outset. From an employer’s perspective, clarity in this clause is essential to prevent future disputes relating to role expectations or alleged underutilization.

How it protects employers

A clearly defined scope of employment:

• Prevents employees from claiming responsibilities beyond their assigned role
• Protects employers from allegations of role dilution or underutilisation
• Provides a clear benchmark for performance evaluation and disciplinary action

Employers should avoid vague job descriptions and include language allowing reasonable modification of duties in line with evolving business requirements. This flexibility is essential in a dynamic commercial environment.

Probation Clause

The probation clause serves as a risk-mitigation tool during the early stages of employment. It enables employers to assess whether an employee is suitable for the role before confirming permanent employment. Probationary employment offers employers greater discretion, especially with respect to termination.

Employer protection

A well-drafted probation clause:

• Permits termination with shorter notice or without notice (if contractually specified)
• Minimises exposure to wrongful termination claims during the initial employment period

To be effective, the probation clause must clearly specify the duration of probation, the employer’s right to extend it, and the notice requirements applicable during this period. Employers should avoid automatic confirmation upon expiry of probation. Instead, confirmation should be conditional upon written approval, ensuring that silence or inaction does not inadvertently create permanent employment rights.

Term and Termination Clause

Termination-related disputes account for a significant proportion of employment litigation in India, making this clause one of the most critical components of an employment contract in India. The termination clause must strike a balance between employer discretion and statutory compliance.

Employer-protective elements

• Termination for convenience with notice or salary in lieu
• Immediate termination for misconduct, fraud, or breach of trust
• Garden leave provisions
• Clear differentiation between termination and statutory retrenchment

However, termination clauses must be carefully drafted to comply with applicable labour laws, especially where employees qualify as “workmen.” Best practice is to adopt differentiated termination frameworks for managerial employees and statutory workers to preserve enforceability.

Confidentiality Clause

Confidentiality clauses are indispensable in protecting proprietary information, trade secrets, and sensitive business data. In the absence of a robust confidentiality framework, employers may find it difficult to restrain former employees from misusing confidential information or to seek effective legal remedies.

Employer protection

It enables employers to:

• Prevent misuse or disclosure of confidential information
• Seek injunctions and damages for breach of confidence
• Strengthen enforcement during and after employment

To enhance enforceability, confidentiality obligations should be clearly defined and extend beyond the termination of employment. Vague or overly broad definitions often weaken enforcement. Instead, employers should specify the categories of confidential information and emphasise the continuing nature of the obligation, which strengthens the employer’s position in seeking injunctions or damages.

Intellectual Property (IP) Ownership Clause

Intellectual property ownership clauses are particularly critical for employers in technology-driven, creative, and knowledge-based industries. This clause ensures that all work created during the course of employment vests exclusively with the employer.

Employer protection

It prevents employees from asserting ownership over inventions, designs, software, or other intellectual property developed during employment or using company resources.

The clause should explicitly cover inventions, designs, software, documentation, and other forms of intellectual output. It should also impose an obligation on employees to assist with IP registration and enforcement even after termination. Employers frequently overlook moral rights waivers where legally permissible, which can later impede commercial exploitation of IP assets.

Non-Solicitation Clause

Non-solicitation clauses play a vital role in protecting business relationships after an employee exits the organisation. Unlike post-employment non-compete clauses, non-solicitation restrictions are generally upheld by Indian courts if they are reasonable in duration and scope.

To improve enforceability, employers should restrict only active solicitation rather than passive acceptance of business. The clause should also be limited to clients, customers, or employees with whom the departing employee had material interaction. Overbroad restrictions often fail judicial scrutiny.

Non-Compete Clause (With Caution)

Under Indian law, post-employment non-compete clauses are largely unenforceable. However, employers can still protect their interests by enforcing non-compete obligations during the term of employment and by indirectly restricting competitive conduct through strong confidentiality and non-solicitation clauses.

Rather than relying on blanket non-compete restrictions, employers should focus on protecting legitimate business interests such as confidential information, proprietary processes, and client relationships. This approach significantly improves the likelihood of judicial enforcement.

Exclusivity and Moonlighting Clause

With the rise of remote work, exclusivity and moonlighting clauses have become increasingly important. These clauses restrict employees from engaging in parallel employment or activities that create conflicts of interest.

Employer protection

• Prevents conflicts of interest
• Safeguards productivity and loyalty
• Particularly relevant in remote and hybrid work models

To withstand legal scrutiny, the clause should clearly define what constitutes a conflict of interest, permit limited exceptions for disclosed passive investments, and outline disciplinary consequences for violations.

Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Clause

A well-integrated code of conduct and disciplinary clause provides employers with a structured mechanism to address misconduct. It strengthens the employer’s position in disciplinary proceedings and supports termination decisions when challenged before courts or labour authorities.

Employer protection

• Enables structured disciplinary processes
• Supports termination for misconduct
• Strengthens defence in employment litigation

Employers should incorporate the code of conduct by reference and reserve the right to amend internal policies. Linking violations to defined disciplinary outcomes enhances transparency and legal defensibility.

Data Protection and IT Usage Clause

Data protection and IT usage clauses regulate employee interaction with company systems, devices, and data. These clauses are essential for limiting employer liability arising from data breaches and for justifying monitoring of official systems.

Employer protection

• Reduces liability arising from data breaches
• Justifies monitoring of official systems
• Supports internal investigations

The clause should establish employer ownership of data, define monitoring rights, and impose obligations to return or delete data upon exit. Such provisions are increasingly relevant in light of evolving data protection standards.

Notice Period and Garden Leave Clause

Notice period and garden leave clauses ensure continuity during employee exit. They provide employers with time to transition responsibilities and protect sensitive information.

Employer advantage

• Facilitates smooth transition of responsibilities
• Restricts immediate joining of competitors
• Allows controlled access during sensitive periods

Employers should retain discretion to waive notice, pay salary in lieu, or enforce garden leave depending on business requirements. This flexibility is a hallmark of an employer-friendly employment contract.

Dispute Resolution and Jurisdiction Clause

Dispute resolution clauses allow employers to control how and where employment disputes are resolved. Specifying exclusive jurisdiction prevents litigation in inconvenient forums, while arbitration clauses—when appropriately drafted—can reduce time and costs, particularly for senior employees.

Employer protection

• Prevents litigation in inconvenient jurisdictions
• Allows arbitration for senior or managerial employees
• Reduces cost and time involved in disputes

Such clauses must be role-specific and carefully structured to avoid enforceability challenges.

Amendment and Waiver Clause

Amendment and waiver clauses prevent implied contractual changes arising from conduct or informal communications. By requiring written amendments, employers protect themselves against unintended dilution of rights.

Survival Clause

Survival clauses ensure that key obligations—such as confidentiality, intellectual property ownership, non-solicitation, and dispute resolution—continue even after termination, reinforcing long-term protection.

Conclusion

A carefully drafted employment contract in India is not a procedural formality but a strategic legal instrument. Employers who invest in robust and compliant employment agreement clauses significantly reduce exposure to disputes, intellectual property theft, client poaching, and regulatory penalties. In today’s legal environment, poor drafting is invariably more expensive than sound legal advice.

Need Help Drafting or Reviewing Employment Contracts?

Every organisation requires role-specific and industry-specific contracts to ensure an enforceable employment contract in India. Generic templates often fail to withstand legal scrutiny.

R Associates advises employers on drafting and reviewing employer-friendly employment contracts that are commercially practical, legally compliant, and aligned with evolving Indian labour laws. Professional legal structuring at the contract stage can prevent costly disputes later.

 

Read More

India’s New Labour Codes: A Detailed Legal Overview

Read the Labour Codes compliance framework in detail

India has undertaken one of the most far-reaching labour law reforms since Independence by consolidating 29 central labour legislations into four Labour Codes. The reform seeks to simplify India’s complex labour law framework, reduce multiplicity of compliances, enhance ease of doing business, and simultaneously ensure better protection and social security for workers. These Codes are expected to significantly alter employer–employee relationships across sectors.

Objectives Behind the Labour Code Reforms

The primary objectives of the Labour Code reforms include rationalisation of existing labour laws, uniformity in definitions and compliance mechanisms, reduction in litigation arising out of overlapping provisions, and extension of statutory benefits to unorganised, gig, and platform workers. The reforms also aim to encourage formalisation of employment while maintaining industrial harmony.

1. Code on Wages, 2019

The Code on Wages, 2019 consolidates four wage-related legislations, namely the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. One of the most significant changes introduced is a uniform definition of the term ‘wages’ applicable across labour Laws.

The Code empowers the Central Government to fix a national floor wage, taking into account minimum living standards. State Governments must ensure that minimum wages fixed by them are not lower than the floor wage. The Code also strengthens provisions relating to timely payment of wages and prohibits gender-based discrimination in matters of remuneration.

2. Industrial Relations Code, 2020

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 consolidates the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Code seeks to balance the need for flexibility for employers with safeguards for workers’ rights. A notable feature is the introduction of the concept of a negotiating union or negotiating council to streamline

collective bargaining. The threshold for prior government approval for layoffs, retrenchment, and closure has been increased from 100 to 300 workers, providing operational flexibility to establishments.

3. Code on Social Security, 2020

The Code on Social Security, 2020 is one of the most progressive aspects of the labour reforms. It consolidates key social welfare legislations such as the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, Employees’ State Insurance Act, Payment of Gratuity Act, and the Maternity Benefit Act.

For the first time, the Code recognises gig workers, platform workers, and unorganised workers and enables the formulation of social security schemes for them. It also provides for a national social security database and simplified digital registration processes.

4. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code consolidates 13 labour laws relating to workplace safety, health, and welfare. It aims to provide a uniform regulatory framework across factories, mines, construction sites, and other establishments.

The Code introduces common registration and licensing mechanisms, prescribes standard working conditions, and includes specific provisions for employment of women during night shifts subject to safety measures.

Implementation Status and Way Forward

Although all four Labour Codes have received Presidential assent, their enforcement depends upon notification of rules by the Central Government and adoption by State Governments. As labour is a subject under the Concurrent List, employers must closely monitor state-specific developments. Businesses are advised to proactively review employment contracts, wage structures, HR policies, and compliance frameworks to ensure readiness once the Codes are fully implemented.

Conclusion

The new Labour Codes represent a paradigm shift in India’s labour law landscape. While they promise simplified compliance and broader social security coverage, their successful implementation will depend on clarity in rule-making and effective enforcement. Employers and professionals should seek timely legal advice to navigate this evolving regulatory environment.

 

Read More

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Tspl’s Attempt To Expand Scope Of Appeal

Introduction

On 03.11.2025, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal of Electricity (the ‘Hon’ble Tribunal’) pronounced the judgment in the matter between Talwandi Sabo Power Limited (‘TSPL’) and Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (the ‘State Commission’). While doing so, the Hon’ble Tribunal has ruled in the favour of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (‘PSPCL’) and observed that the Application filed by TSPL seeking deemed capacity charges for the year 2014 on account of alleged failure on the part of PSPCL to arrange adequate quantity as well as quality of coal for its power project is beyond the scope of the present appeal. It also held that claims not pleaded or argued before the State Commission cannot be raised for the first time before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 

Background

The appeal presently before the Hon’ble Tribunal arises from orders dated 06.09.2016 and 08.09.2016 passed by the State Commission in Petitions No. 11 of 2012 and 46 of 2012. These proceedings were remanded by the Hon’ble Tribunal through its judgment dated 07.04.2016 (in Appeal Nos. 56 & 84 of 2013) wherein the State Commission was required to pass consequential orders in terms of directions given in the remand judgment.

However, TSPL—nearly nine years later—attempted to inject a fresh, never sought claims relating to deemed capacity charges for the periods July–October 2014 and December 2014allegedly arising from PSPCL’s supposed failure to supply adequate coal.

This claim had its own separate procedural trajectory. TSPL had raised it only in Petition No. 34 of 2015, distinct from the present appeal, which the State Commission referred to arbitration in December 2015. 

In the arbitral proceedings arising from the State Commission’s reference in Petition No. 34 of 2015, TSPL sought, by way of a belated amendment application filed on 20.01.2024, to introduce a new claim for deemed capacity charges for the 2014 period, a claim that had never formed part of the disputes originally referred to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal, by its order dated 31.07.2025, rejected the amendment, holding that the 2014 claim fell outside the scope of the reference and could not be imported through an afterthought pleading.

When the Arbitral Tribunal limited the scope of its jurisdiction to the terms of reference and declined to examine the 2014 deemed availability claim, TSPL attempted to bring the issue into the Appeal No. 331 of 2016 pending before the Hon’ble Tribunal, as a supplementary pleading through an I.A. for Urgent Listing filed in September, 2025.

Submission Made by the Parties

TSPL essentially argued as under:

1. The company would be left “remediless” because the Arbitral Tribunal had declined to adjudicate it.
2. The issue ought to be adjudicated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
3. PSPCL had allegedly stated before the Arbitral Tribunal that the 2014 claim was “subsumed” within the pending appeal before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal.
4. While the arbitral proceedings would address the plea of force majeure raised by it, the issue concerning PSPCL’s coal supply obligation for the year 2014 remained to be adjudicated on merits and, therefore, rightly falls within the scope of the present appeal for consideration by the Hon’ble Tribunal.

PSPCL’s key arguments were as under:

• The 2014 claim was never part of Petitions 11/2012 or 46/2012. Thus, it could not be retrofitted into an appeal arising out of those petitions.
  Note: In fact, the Hon’ble Tribunal has confirmed that no pleadings, prayers, submissions, or issues relating to the 2014 deemed capacity claim exist anywhere in the proceedings giving rise to this appeal.
• TSPL already pursued the 2014 claim separately and failed to amend arbitration. TSPL is bound by its choice to raise the 2014 claim in Petition 34/2015. PSPCL pointed out that the 2014 deemed-capacity claim appeared for the first time in Petition 34 of 2015, which was referred to arbitration. When TSPL later sought, in January 2024, to amend the arbitral pleadings to add this claim, the Arbitral Tribunal rejected the amendment on 31.07.2025, holding that the claim was outside the scope of the reference. Having failed in arbitration, TSPL could not now use this appeal as a substitute original forum. 
• No jurisdiction can be created by alleged “admissions” or equitable pleas. PSPCL, clarified that it never admitted that the 2014 claim fell within this appeal. Any references made during arbitration were jurisdictional objections, not concessions. In any event, PSPCL argued, jurisdiction cannot arise from a party’s statement, and an appellate court cannot decide a dispute never adjudicated below. 
• Jurisdiction cannot be created by assertions of “prejudice”: Even if an arbitral ruling constrains TSPL, the remedy lies in challenging the arbitral order, not reshaping the pending appeal.
• TSPL, under the pretext of seeking urgent listing, was in fact attempting to raise a new claim for capacity charges for the year 2014, a matter that was never decided by the State Commission, nor part of the present appeal. PSPCL emphasized that TSPL had not filed any application to amend its appeal under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, rendering the request procedurally defective.

Analysis and Conclusion

The Hon’ble Tribunal while appreciating the submissions of PSPCL took a view that the held that the claim sought to be introduced by TSPL was beyond the scope of the pending appeal and therefore not maintainable.

The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that the present appeal (Appeal No. 331 of 2016) emanates from the orders dated 06.09.2016 and 08.09.2016 passed by the State Commission in Petitions Nos. 11 and 46 of 2012, which themselves were remanded for limited reconsideration pursuant to the Tribunal’s earlier judgment dated 07.04.2016 in Appeal Nos. 56 and 84 of 2013. The issues in those proceedings were confined to the question of PSPCL’s obligation to execute the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) and the Fuel Transportation Agreement (FTA) with Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and the Indian Railways, respectively.

In contrast, the claim for deemed capacity charges for the year 2014 arose subsequently and was raised by TSPL for the first time in Petition No. 34 of 2015, which had been referred to arbitration by the State Commission vide order dated 07.12.2015. The Hon’ble Tribunal has duly observed that TSPL could not use the present appeal to cure that jurisdictional defect or bypass the arbitral rejection.

In light of the above, the concluded that the claim of appellant for deemed capacity charges pertaining to the year 2014 on account of alleged failure on the part of PSPCL to arrange adequate quantity as well as quality of coal for its power project is totally alien to this appeal and therefore, appellant cannot be permitted to file any pleadings/documents/data/submissions etc. with regards to the same in this appeal, as sought vide prayer (b) of the application.

Thus, the above Judgment reinforces a critical principle of appellate discipline, that parties cannot expand or reshape the scope of an appeal to introduce fresh causes of action never adjudicated by the original forum. It strengthens procedural certainty in regulatory litigation by affirming that jurisdiction must be rooted in the pleadings and statutory architecture not in afterthought claims or strategic manoeuvring.

Appeal made by:
Reeha Singh and Shirin Gupta

Represented by:
Poorva Saigal, Shubham Arya and Reeha Singh in – TSPL Case

 Read the order in detail

Read More

Hon’ble Supreme Court Upholds APTEL’s Restitution Findings In The Vemagiri Transmission Dispute; Dismisses REC’s Challenge

Introduction

On 10.10.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed Civil Appeal Nos. 11011–11013 of 2025 filed by REC Power Development and Consultancy Limited (REC), thereby affirming the judgment dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).

The appeals concerned long-standing disputes surrounding the Vemagiri Transmission Project, developed under the Tariff-Based Competitive Bidding (TBCB) framework in terms of the Guidelines dated 17.04.2006. Central to the matter were issues of restitution, regulatory jurisdiction, and the extent to which a Bid Process Coordinator (BPC) could be held accountable for actions taken during the execution of the TBCB process.

R Associates represented Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (POWERGRID), the successful bidder for the transmission project, whose acquisition costs and subsequent expenses were under challenge.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, affirming APTEL’s reasoning, declined to interfere with the detailed factual and legal findings, recognising that principles of fairness and restitution governed the dispute.

Background

The Vemagiri Transmission Project was initiated to evacuate power from the gas-based generation projects of Spectrum and Samalkot under a TBCB framework.

In 2012, REC, acting as BPC, insisted that POWERGRID proceed with acquisition of the Special Purpose Vehicle—Vemagiri Transmission System Limited (VTSL), despite the Ministry of Power’s notifications dated 14.03.2012 and 19.03.2012 indicating non-availability of domestic gas for the concerned generators.

Spectrum and Samalkot themselves had, in letters dated 30.03.2012 and 06.04.2012, sought cancellation or deferment of the Transmission Service Agreement (TSA). REC nevertheless required POWERGRID to acquire VTSL and pay the acquisition price of Rs. 18.27 crores.

Given this sequence, POWERGRID later sought restitution before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), leading to a series of proceedings culminating in APTEL’s judgment directing adjustment of costs and holding REC accountable for failing to defer acquisition despite clear grounds to do so.

APTEL held that:

1. Spectrum and Samalkot were not liable for acquisition or operational costs;
2. POWERGRID could not be saddled with costs it incurred under compelling circumstances;
3. CERC must adjust these costs either by recovering the amount from REC or through other regulatory mechanisms.

REC challenged these findings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Submission Made by the Parties

REC contended as under:

• CERC lacked jurisdiction over disputes involving BPC, as REC was only a pro forma party to the original proceedings.
• The acquisition was undertaken voluntarily by POWERGRID, despite indications regarding gas non-availability, and therefore no restitution could be claimed.
• APTEL erred in fastening liability upon REC when it was not a party to the TSA and had no role after initiating the bidding process.

POWERGRID’s key submissions were as under:

• REC, as BPC, failed in its statutory role:
  Under Clause 2.4(e) of the Request for Proposal (RfP), REC had the express power to defer acquisition on account of material developments. Despite receiving letters from Spectrum and Ministry notifications regarding non-availability of gas, REC insisted on strict adherence to timelines and mandated payment of acquisition price.
• POWERGRID acted without fault and under compelling circumstances:
  POWERGRID highlighted that non-compliance would have resulted in encashment of its bid bond under Clause 2.7 of the RfP. As the selected bidder, POWERGRID had no discretion other than to fulfil bid terms.
  
• Certain Concurrent findings of CERC and APTEL:
  Both authorities concurrently upheld that the acquisition price to be paid to POWERGRID is required to be reimbursed.
  
• CERC had jurisdiction over disputes involving a transmission licensee and BPC:
  Relying on Section 79(1)(c) and (f) of the Act, POWERGRID submitted that disputes “in connection with” inter-State transmission, including those arising during bidding, acquisition, and TSA implementation, fall squarely within the Central Commission’s jurisdiction. Reference was also made to the wide interpretation of regulatory powers recognised in K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Energy Watchdog v. CERC.
• Restitution was the only equitable outcome:
  POWERGRID urged that the economic position preceding compelled acquisition must be restored, especially when the project could not proceed due to reasons clearly beyond its control.

Analysis and Conclusion

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after hearing all parties, declined to interfere with APTEL’s detailed factual findings and legal reasoning, observing that “…no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned judgment/order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi, on principles of fairness as well as restitution.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has thereby affirmed:

• the correctness of APTEL’s restitution-based approach;
• the concurrent findings of CERC and APTEL that the concurrently upheld that the acquisition price to be paid to POWERGRID is required to be reimbursed.
• the power of CERC to adjudicate disputes involving BPCs when connected to inter-State transmission; and
• the accountability of the Bid Process Coordinator when its actions materially contribute to avoidable economic loss.
• By dismissing REC’s appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has brought finality to more than a decade of litigation stemming from the aborted Vemagiri Transmission System. The decision reinforces jurisprudence on BPC obligations, regulatory oversight under Section 79, and the availability of restitutionary remedies within the TBCB framework.

Prepared By:
Reeha Singh

Represented by:
Shubham Arya, Poorva Saigal, Reeha Singh and Shirin Gupta

 

Read the order in detail: 

Read More

India’s Labour Law Reset

With the notification of the four Labour Codes on 21 November 2025, India has initiated a comprehensive overhaul of its labour regulation framework. This analysis outlines the codification’s impact, expanded wage definitions, changes to industrial relations, contract labour restrictions, and the compliance roadmap for employers navigating a partially harmonised legal landscape.

Read More