THE HP POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. versus M/S BRUA HYDROWATT PVT. LTD. & ORS.

THE HP POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. versus M/S BRUA HYDROWATT PVT. LTD. & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity erred in disregarding the absence of privity between HPPTC Ltd and Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 under the Connection Agreement dated 02.07.2021; accordingly, HPPTC Ltd could claim the Bay charges from BHP Ltd (the applicant under the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: The HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.; Respondent No.1: M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent No.2: M/s Darjeeling Power Pvt Ltd; Respondent No.3: M/s Roura Non-Conventional Energy Pvt Ltd; Proforma Respondent: Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission; Proforma Respondent: State of Himachal Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; APTEL judgment set aside and State Commission order restored
Legal Topics
Doctrine of Privity, Connection Agreement, Transmission Charges, O&m Charges
Electricity Law Contract Law Doctrine of Privity Connection Agreement Transmission Charges O&m Charges

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Appellant

M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent No.1

M/s Darjeeling Power Pvt Ltd

Respondent No.2

M/s Roura Non-Conventional Energy Pvt Ltd

Respondent No.3

Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

Proforma Respondent

State of Himachal Pradesh

Proforma Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity was correct in reversing the State Commission and exonerating respondent from bearing the entire construction cost for the Bay
  2. 2 Whether HPPTC Ltd could recover Bay construction and related charges from generating companies that were not party to the Connection Agreement dated 02.07.2021

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity erred in disregarding the absence of privity between HPPTC Ltd and Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 under the Connection Agreement dated 02.07.2021; accordingly, HPPTC Ltd could claim the Bay charges from BHP Ltd (the applicant under the Connection Agreement) and could not directly recover proportionate shares from the other two generating companies who were not parties to that agreement. The APTEL judgment was set aside and the State Commission order restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; APTEL judgment set aside and State Commission order restored

Orders

  • The Impugned Judgment dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity is set aside
  • The Order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is restored