CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (CESC) versus SAISUDHIR ENERGY (CHITRADURGA) PVT. LTD. & ANR.

CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (CESC) versus SAISUDHIR ENERGY (CHITRADURGA) PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Because the Developer did not obtain an extension under Article 5.7 nor issue the notice required by Article 14.5, the preconditions for invocation of Article 4.4 were satisfied and CESC validly encashed the performance security; the State Commission and APTEL erred in treating the delay as Force Majeure and directing restoration, extension and renegotiation contrary to the express contractual scheme.

Parties
Appellant: Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited; Respondent No.1 (developer): M/s Saisudhir Energy (Chitradurga) Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent No.2 (kptcl): Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 6888 of 2018 / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court (appeal Against APTEL Judgment Dated 21.03.2018)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned APTEL judgment dated 21.03.2018 and State Commission order dated 28.01.2015 set aside
Legal Topics
Performance Bank Guarantee, Force Majeure, Power Purchase Agreement, Conditions Precedent, Contractual Timelines, Tariff Renegotiation, Competence of Regulatory Fora
Electricity Law Contract Law Regulatory Law Performance Bank Guarantee Force Majeure Power Purchase Agreement Conditions Precedent Contractual Timelines +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited

Appellant

M/s Saisudhir Energy (Chitradurga) Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent No.1 (developer)

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Respondent No.2 (kptcl)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 6888 of 2018 / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court (appeal Against APTEL Judgment Dated 21.03.2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Effect of KPTCL delay in commissioning 220 kV evacuation system on CPs and COD timelines under the PPA
  2. 2 Entitlement of CESC to invoke and encash the performance bank guarantee
  3. 3 Sustainability of Force Majeure finding absent contractual notice under Article 14.5 of the PPA

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Developer did not obtain an extension under Article 5.7 nor issue the notice required by Article 14.5, the preconditions for invocation of Article 4.4 were satisfied and CESC validly encashed the performance security; the State Commission and APTEL erred in treating the delay as Force Majeure and directing restoration, extension and renegotiation contrary to the express contractual scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned APTEL judgment dated 21.03.2018 and State Commission order dated 28.01.2015 set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the APTEL dated 21.03.2018 in Appeal No.176 of 2015 set aside
  • Order dated 28.01.2015 of the Karnataka State Commission in O.P. No.24 of 2014 set aside