Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

SC Overturns APEEL’s Cost Reversal: HPPTC Not Liable for Other Generators’ Dues Under Joint Interconnection Agreement

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

The case involves a dispute over who is liable for the entire cost of a “Bay” (a component of an electrical switching station) at the 66KV Switching Station at Urni, constructed by HPPTC Ltd..

HPPTC Ltd. is a transmission licensee responsible for executing transmission networks2. BHP Ltd. is a generating company engaged in hydroelectric projects.

An Implementation Agreement was signed in 2006 to establish the Brua Hydro Electric Project (BHEP), with a capacity initially of 05 MW, later revised to 09 MW.

The connection for BHEP was planned at Karcham but was later modified to be at Urni, allowing for a joint mode connection for three generating companies: BHEP (BHP Ltd.), Shaung, and Roura-II Hydro Power Project.

A Connection Agreement (CA) dated 04.06.2014, later revised on 02.07.2021, designated Urni as the connection point.

An Internal Tripartite Agreement (ITA) dated 27.12.2019 was entered into by all three generating companies (BHP Ltd., Respondent No.02, and Respondent No.03) to allow for proportionate sharing of charges for the cost of the Bay installed by HPPTC Ltd at Urni. BHP Ltd. was designated as the sole applicant for payment under the CA dated 02.07.20216.

HPPTC’s Demand: HPPTC Ltd. raised a demand of INR 3,42,85,447 for the construction cost of the Bay.

BHP’s Stance: BHP Ltd. contended that Respondent No. 02 agreed to pay its proportionate share, but Respondent No. 03 refused to do so7. BHP Ltd. sought to deposit its proportionate share and that of Respondent No. 02, but Respondent No. 03’s share with interest subsequently. HPPTC Ltd. rejected this, stating BHP Ltd. was solely liable under the CA dated 02.07.2021.

Lower Forums:

The State Commission observed that BHP Ltd. was the lead partner of the consortium and liable for the entire connection cost, with the expectation that it would be reimbursed by the other respondents. It held that HPPTC Ltd. should not have to issue separate bills.

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the State Commission’s findings16. APTEL held that Clauses 2.4 and 2.5 of the CA dated 02.07.2021 did not indicate that BHP Ltd. agreed to pay the entire Bay charges on behalf of the other respondents. APTEL concluded that HPPTC Ltd. could not unilaterally demand payment for other generating companies from BHP Ltd..

Law Involved

Electricity Act, 2003: Specifically Section 86(1)(f) and Section 111.

Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005: Regulations 53, 68, and 70.

Connection Agreement (CA) dated 02.07.2021 (Revised): This was the primary contractual agreement governing the interconnection.

Clause 02 (Payment of Charges and Costs): Deals with the payment obligations for Monthly Transmission Tariff, additional costs, damages, and charges for construction of Bays.

Clause 2.4 (Agreement to pay Charges for construction of Bays): States the applicant (BHP Ltd.) shall pay charges to STU for construction of bays if required.

Clause 2.5 (Agreement to pay O&M Charges): States the applicant shall pay O&M charges to STU11.

Internal Tripartite Agreement (ITA) dated 27.12.2019: An agreement among the three generating companies for proportionate sharing of charges.

Doctrine of Privity: The principle that a contract cannot impose obligations on one who is not a party to it.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning focused on the interpretation of the contractual agreements, particularly the CA dated 02.07.2021 and the ITA dated 27.12.2019.

Interpretation of Agreements: The Court found that the APTEL’s interpretation of the CA dated 02.07.2021 was erroneous14. The CA explicitly designated BHP Ltd. as the sole applicant for payment of charges and costs6…. Clause 02 of the CA made it clear that all charges were to be paid by the applicant (BHP Ltd.).

ITA’s Role: The ITA dated 27.12.2019, which addressed the proportionate sharing of costs among the three generating companies, was an internal arrangement between BHP Ltd. and the other two respondents (Respondent No.02 and Respondent No.03)17. HPPTC Ltd. was not a party to the ITA.

Privity of Contract: The Supreme Court emphasized that since HPPTC Ltd. was not a party to the ITA, it cannot be bound by its terms13…. Therefore, HPPTC Ltd. cannot “seek or enforce to recover” payments from Respondent No.02 and Respondent No.03 directly. The principle of “privity to the agreement or contract cannot be, unless the context otherwise makes it apparent, made liable for any term(s) and condition(s) unrelated to it” .

BHP Ltd.’s Primary Responsibility: The Court concluded that BHP Ltd. had taken up the primary responsibility to settle the claims for all three projects with HPPTC Ltd.17. Its liability to pay the entire cost of the Bay, including metering arrangements, was established by the CA, with proportionate recovery from the other generating companies being an internal matter for BHP Ltd..

APTEL’s Error: APTEL’s decision was based on “wrong assumptions and misreading of the terms of agreement” by ignoring the basic principle of privity of contract . It failed to appreciate that the liability of BHP Ltd. to HPPTC Ltd. for the charges was explicitly stated in the CA, irrespective of the internal arrangements of the generating companies.

Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal in favour of HPPTC Ltd. .

The impugned Judgment dated 17.03.2023 passed by APTEL was set aside .

The Order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the State Commission (which held BHP Ltd. solely liable to HPPTC Ltd.) was restored . This means that BHP Ltd. is liable for the entire cost of the Bay to HPPTC Ltd., and it is BHP Ltd.’s responsibility to recover proportionate shares from the other generating companies based on their internal agreement.

Hp Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. V. M/S Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. And Others

Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 680: (DoJ 14-05-2025)

2025 INSC 680 Download Supreme Court File

Share
Next Story
Next Story

Delayed Death: When ‘Attempted Murder’ Becomes More

September 13, 2025 No Comments

Maniklall Sahu, the appellant, along with three co-accused, trespassed into the house of Rekhchand Verma, assaulted him with sticks and fisticuffs, and flung him from a terrace. The injured person, Rekhchand Verma, initially survived but was in a critical condition. He eventually succumbed to his injuries approximately nine months after the incident, dying on 8th November 2022 due to septicaemia and pneumonia, leading to cardiorespiratory arrest. The trial court had initially convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. However, the High Court altered this conviction to Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, sentencing the appellant to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The appellant subsequently filed this appeal challenging the Section 307 IPC conviction.

Law Involved The primary legal provisions under consideration are Sections 299, 300, 302, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder): This section deals with acts done with the intention or knowledge that it might cause death, and if death occurs, the act would be murder.

Section 299 IPC (Culpable Homicide): Defines culpable homicide.

Section 300 IPC (Murder): Specifies when culpable homicide amounts to murder, including acts done with the intention of causing death, or causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or knowing the act is so imminently dangerous that it will most probably cause death.

Section 302 IPC (Punishment for Murder): Prescribes the punishment for murder. The core legal question revolves around the “Application of Theory of Causation where death ensues after some delay” and whether the High Court correctly applied Section 307 IPC despite the victim’s eventual death.

Reasoning The Supreme Court critically analysed the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 307 IPC, especially given the victim’s death.

  1. Medical Evidence and Causation: The Court reviewed extensive medical evidence, which consistently showed that the deceased, Rekhchand Verma, suffered severe injuries, including a head injury, spinal cord injury leading to paraplegia, and multiple complications such as infected bedsores, septic shock, and bilateral pneumonia. Medical experts testified that these complications were a direct result of the initial injuries sustained during the assault and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court highlighted that the injured person received medical treatment for nine months before his demise. The Court concluded that the injuries suffered were grievous and that the death was a consequence of these injuries, with complications like septicaemia and pneumonia not breaking the chain of causation.
  2. High Court’s Error: The Supreme Court determined that the High Court committed a serious error in bringing the case under the ambit of “attempt to commit murder” (Section 307 IPC) on the premise that the victim survived for about nine months, and his death was due to complications during treatment and not directly from the initial injuries. The Supreme Court stressed that if the injury was fatal and intended to cause death, or if death occurred after some delay due to septicaemia or other complications stemming from the injury, the offence would fall under the first limb of Section 300 IPC (murder) [36a]. Furthermore, if the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and death occurred due to septicaemia or other complications, the act would amount to culpable homicide punishable under Section 302 IPC, falling under the third limb of Section 300 IPC [36b, 37c, 37d].
  3. Jurisprudence on Delayed Death: Drawing on various precedents, the Court reiterated that delayed death or intervening medical conditions (like septicaemia or pneumonia) do not automatically absolve an accused of murder charges if the initial injuries were the proximate cause of death. The Court concluded that the cause of death was indeed due to the injuries suffered, and the contention that the death resulted from a lack of proper treatment or was disconnected from the initial assault was unfounded.

Holding The Supreme Court dismissed Maniklall Sahu’s appeal . While the appellant’s conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) as altered by the High Court stands affirmed due to the dismissal of his appeal, the Supreme Court clearly stated that the High Court committed a serious error in altering the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 307 IPC . The Supreme Court’s detailed reasoning underscored that given the medical evidence and the established chain of causation, the offence should have been considered murder or culpable homicide amounting to murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC, because the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Maniklall Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 1107: (DoJ 12-09-2025)

2025 INSC 1107 Download Supreme Court File

Share
Next Story

Tender Troubles: Supreme Court Upholds Bid Sanctity, Overturns Rectification

September 13, 2025 No Comments

The case originated from an electronic bid (No. 7 of 2023-24) issued by the Superintending Engineer and Project Director, Project Implementation Unit – I, Public Works (Roads) Directorate, Government of West Bengal, on 17.10.2023. The tender was for collecting Road User Fee (RUF) from commercial vehicles for 1095 days. The earnest money deposit was fixed at Rs. 25,00,000.00. Seven bidders participated. The technical bids were evaluated, and four bidders were technically qualified, including Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited (appellant) and Mandeepa Enterprises (respondent No. 1).

Financial bids were opened on 08.12.2023. The appellant, Prakash Asphaltings, was found to be the highest bidder (H1) with a quoted amount of Rs. 91,19,00,000.00 for 1095 days. Respondent No. 1, Mandeepa Enterprises, was the lowest bidder (H4) with an offered amount of Rs. 9,72,999.00 per day.

Respondent No. 1 subsequently claimed a typographical error in their financial bid, stating they intended to quote Rs. 106,54,33,905.00 for the entire contract period instead of Rs. 9,72,999.00 per day. They requested the tendering authority to treat the figure of Rs. 9,72,999.00 as a typographical error and read it as Rs. 106,54,33,905.00. The tendering authority rejected this request on 20.12.2023, stating that correction of a financial bid after opening was not possible and would impeach the sanctity of the tender process.

Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition (WPA No. 29001 of 2023) before a Single Judge of the High Court, which was dismissed on 03.01.2024, as the Single Judge found no scope for interference. Respondent No. 1 then filed an intra-court appeal (MAT No. 93 of 2024). A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal on 23.02.2024, observing that the error in quoting the figure by respondent No. 1 was inadvertent. The Division Bench directed the tendering authority to evaluate Respondent No. 1’s BOQ at Rs. 106,54,33,905.00 and offer other bidders the opportunity to match this figure. This civil appeal was directed against the Division Bench’s judgment and order.

Law Involved

Clause 4(g) of the Notice Inviting Electronic Bid: This clause specifically states that any change in the template of the Bill of Quantity (BOQ) will not be accepted under any circumstances.

Clause 5B(v) of the Instructions to Bidders: This clause outlines that during bid evaluation, if bidders fail to submit supporting documents or original hard copies within the stipulated timeframe, their proposals will be liable for rejection.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Pertains to the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue writs.

Principles of Equity and Natural Justice in Tender Processes: The judgment refers to the importance of these principles in tender and contract awards, but also emphasises that these principles should be kept at a distance when there is a violation of rules.

Judicial Review of Administrative Action: The Court reiterated that judicial review in administrative action, particularly tenders, is limited to preventing arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, and mala fides. Courts should not interfere with a decision unless it is “unlawful” or “unsound”.

Public Interest: Tenders are a cornerstone of governmental procurement processes, aiming for competitiveness, fairness, and transparency in resource allocation. Adherence to rules and conditions and the sanctity of the tender process are paramount.

Reasoning The Supreme Court reasoned that the Division Bench’s interpretation was erroneous for several key reasons:

Sanctity of Tender Process: The Court held that allowing rectification of financial bids after they have been opened would impeach the sanctity and integrity of the entire tender process.

Strict Adherence to Tender Conditions: Clause 4(g) explicitly prohibits any change in the BOQ template under any circumstances. The Division Bench’s broad interpretation of “bona fide mistake” to allow rectification was held to be incorrect and would put “shackles on the functioning of the tendering authority”.

Nature of the Mistake: While Respondent No. 1 claimed an inadvertent mistake, it was effectively a unilateral or systematic computer typographical transmission failure, not one attributable to the tendering authority. Such a mistake, even if unintentional, cannot be a ground to allow post-bid modifications that would undermine the competitive bidding process.

Adverse Consequences to Public Exchequer: The Division Bench’s decision to re-evaluate Respondent No. 1’s bid at a significantly higher amount (Rs. 106,54,33,905.00) meant that the appellant, who was originally the H1 bidder, would be displaced. This would lead to a considerable loss of revenue to the state exchequer (approximately 15 crores) by not accepting the higher bid of the appellant and giving an opportunity to Respondent No. 1 to correct its bid post-opening.

Limited Scope of Judicial Review: The Court reiterated that interference by a writ court in ongoing tender processes is not permissible unless there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice, or the decision is arbitrary or mala fide. The Division Bench’s decision was deemed a clear violation of natural justice principles.

Non-Joinder of Party: The appellant (Prakash Asphaltings), as the highest bidder and a directly affected party, was not made a party respondent in the intra-court appeal before the Division Bench, which was viewed as prejudicial and a violation of natural justice.

Holding The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, thereby setting aside and quashing the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in MAT No. 93 of 2024. The Court sustained the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. Consequently, Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited (the appellant), being the H1 bidder, is to be awarded the contract in terms of the notice inviting electronic bid dated 17.10.2023. The Court also ruled that there shall be no order as to costs.

Prakash Asphaltings And Toll Highways (India) Limited Vs Mandeep Enterprises And Others

Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 1108: (DoJ 12-09-2025)

2025 INSC 1108 Download Supreme Court File

Share
Next Story

“Speculative Investors” Barred from IBC Relief: Supreme Court Upholds Homebuyer Protections

September 13, 2025 No Comments

Four appeals were heard together, arising from orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The key appellants, Mansi Brar Fernandes and Sunita Agarwal, had entered into agreements with developers (Gayatri Infra Planner Pvt. Ltd. and Antriksh Infratech Pvt. Ltd., respectively) for property units. Both agreements included buy-back clauses and involved advance payments. The developers defaulted, and the appellants initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The NCLAT reversed the admission of these applications, branding the appellants as “speculative investors” rather than genuine homebuyers or financial creditors.

Law Involved: The central legal framework is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), specifically Section 7, which governs the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by financial creditors. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019, and the subsequent Amendment Act, are also critical. These amendments introduced a threshold requirement for allottees to file a Section 7 application (requiring at least 10% of allottees or 100 allottees). The Court frequently referenced its earlier judgment in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v. Union of India, which distinguishes between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors. The judgment also emphasizes the Right to Shelter as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and the role of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

Reasoning: The Supreme Court deliberated on the distinction between “speculative investors” and “genuine homebuyers” within the context of the IBC. It observed that the IBC is intended as a collective mechanism to revive viable projects and safeguard the fundamental right to shelter of genuine homebuyers, not as a recovery tool or a bargaining chip for individuals. The legislative intent behind recognizing allottees as financial creditors was to protect genuine homebuyers, while simultaneously preventing misuse by speculative investors seeking premature exits or exorbitant returns, which had burdened the real estate sector and the adjudicatory machinery.

The Court provided criteria to identify speculative investors, including: agreements that substitute possession with buy-back or refund options, insistence on refunds with high interest, purchase of multiple units (especially in double digits), demanding special rights or privileges, deviations from the RERA Model Agreement, and unrealistic interest rates or promises of returns. The transaction entered into by Mansi Brar Fernandes, involving a buy-back clause and the pursuit of commercial returns rather than possession, led the Court to conclude that she was indeed a speculative investor. Similarly, Sunita Agarwal’s agreement for an “investment” with a 25% per annum return over 24 months, coupled with a buy-back clause, indicated a speculative intent.

While affirming the NCLAT’s finding that the appellants were “speculative investors,” the Supreme Court clarified that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019, was indeed applicable to the facts of the present case, correcting the NCLAT’s reasoning on this point [19, 20, 35, 36, 48(ii)]. The Court applied the doctrine of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit (an act of the Court shall prejudice no one) to address the procedural issues related to the Ordinance’s applicability and the delay it caused.

Holding: The Supreme Court affirmed the NCLAT’s findings that Mansi Brar Fernandes and Sunita Agarwal were “speculative investors” and therefore not entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC [25, 34, 48(i)]. Consequently, the Court upheld the NCLAT’s orders setting aside the admission of their Section 7 applications by the NCLT [48(i)]. However, the Court clarified that the Ordinance/Amendment Act was applicable to the case, although this correction in reasoning did not alter the ultimate outcome given the appellants’ status as speculative investors [48(ii)]. The appellants remain free to pursue their remedies through other appropriate legal forums, without being barred by limitation [48(i)].

Mansi Brar Fernandes Vs Subha Sharma And Anr.

Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 1110: (DoJ 12-09-2025)

2025 INSC 1110 Download Supreme Court File

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins