Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeals Against Ex Parte Interim Injunction in Pr...
High Court of Karnataka Allows Revision Petition in Private Complaint Case — T...
High Court of Karnataka Allows Revision Petition in Private Complaint Case — T...
High Court of Karnataka Quashes Family Court Proceedings in Custody Case Due to ...

HomeJudgement

Scroll Down To Discover

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals Against High Court Order in Electricity Transmission Dispute — CERC's Power to Grant Compensation Upheld. The Court held that the CERC's regulatory functions under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 include the power to grant compensation for delay, and such power is not subordinate to regulations under Section 178.

Admin

2026-07-19 08:57:31

Font size:

Case Details

2025 INSC 697

Civil Appeal No. 6847 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 7605 of 2021) and Civil Appeal No. 6848 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 7607 of 2021)

2025-01-01

J.B. Pardiwala

2025 INSC 697

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeals against High Court order admitting writ petitions challenging CERC orders granting compensation for delay in commissioning of transmission assets.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of High Court order and restoration of CERC orders allowing compensation.

Filing Reason

The High Court admitted writ petitions on the ground that CERC exceeded its powers under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the 2014 Tariff Regulations.

Previous Decisions

CERC orders dated 21.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 in Petition No. 311/TT/2018 and Petition No. 266/TT/2018 allowed compensation; High Court of Madhya Pradesh admitted writ petitions challenging these orders on 25.02.2021.

Issues

Whether the CERC has the power to grant compensation for delay in commissioning of transmission assets under its regulatory functions under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Whether such power is subject to the regulations framed under Section 178 of the Act. Whether the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 111 of the Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the CERC has regulatory powers under Section 79 to grant compensation, and the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition due to alternative remedy under Section 111. Respondent argued that the CERC's order was not in conformity with the 2014 Tariff Regulations framed under Section 178, and thus the CERC acted without jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The regulatory functions of the CERC under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not subordinate to the regulations framed under Section 178. The CERC has the power to grant compensation for delay in commissioning of transmission assets, even if not specifically provided in the Tariff Regulations, as part of its regulatory functions to ensure smooth functioning of the electricity sector.

Judgment Excerpts

The regulatory functions under Section 79 are not subordinate to the regulations under Section 178. The CERC can exercise its regulatory powers to fill gaps in the regulations. The High Court should not have entertained the writ petition when the CERC's order was within its jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The appellant filed petitions before CERC for approval of COD and determination of transmission charges. CERC passed orders on 21.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 allowing compensation. Respondent challenged these orders before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which admitted the writ petitions on 25.02.2021. Appellant then filed SLPs before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and heard the appeals.

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act, 2003: Section 38, Section 79, Section 111, Section 178
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2014: Regulation 4(3)

One-Time Download (₹149 ₹99) Get Subscription

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellant in Robbery Case Due to Unreliable Identification and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 392, 397 IPC set aside as sole identifying witness failed to provide consistent description and no independent c... 2026-07-19 08:57:27

Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Gift Deed in Ancestral Property Dispute — Property Devised by Will Held Self-Acquired. Gift Deed Valid as Execution Not Specifically Denied, No Attesting Witness Required Under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 2026-07-19 08:57:27

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)

Case Details

Nature of Litigation

Remedy Sought

Filing Reason

Previous Decisions

Issues

Submissions/Arguments

Ratio Decidendi

Judgment Excerpts

Procedural History

Acts & Sections

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeals Against Ex Parte Interim Injunction in Property Dis...

High Court of Karnataka Allows Revision Petition in Private Complaint Case — Trial Court...

High Court of Karnataka Allows Revision Petition in Private Complaint Case — Trial Court...

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Family Court Proceedings in Custody Case Due to Violation ...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Claimant in Motor Accident Case — Functional Disability A...

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Forgery Case Due to Long Pendency and No Criminal Antec...

Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Rajya Sabha Nomination Due ...

Supreme Court Allows Pension to Casual Labourers with Temporary Status in Department of Po...

Supreme Court Directs Eviction of Encroachers and Restoration of Forest Lands in Tamil Nad...