infrastructure project - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Upholds Expert Panels’ Role in Cauvery Water Dispute, Dismisses Tamil Nadu’s Applications

3Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Expert Panels’ Role in Cauvery Water Dispute, Dismisses Tamil Nadu’s Applications

The Supreme Court declined to intervene, emphasizing the principle of judicial restraint in matters requiring technical expertise. It held that statutory expert bodies like the CWMA and CWRC are the appropriate fora to adjudicate disputes concerning water allocation and project approval under the final decree, and parties must exhaust these remedies first. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the long-standing Cauvery river water dispute between the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Karnataka. The core issue arose when Tamil Nadu filed Miscellaneous Application No. 3127 of 2018 in the Supreme Court, seeking to stall Karnataka's proposed Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir cum Drinking Water Project. Tamil Nadu argued that the Central Water Commission's (CWC) permission for ...

Supreme Court Backs Discom: Upholds Right to Encash Bank Guarantee in Delayed Solar Project

The Supreme Court held that the Power Purchase Agreement's explicit terms govern the parties' rights. The encashment of the performance bank guarantee was valid as the developer failed to seek an extension under the contractual mechanism or issue a mandatory Force Majeure notice. Regulatory commissions cannot rewrite the contractual risk allocation or grant remedies outside the agreed framework. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed between Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (CESC) and Saisudhir Energy Pvt. Ltd. for a 10 MW solar power project. The PPA stipulated that the developer was to achieve the Commercial Operation Date (COD) within 12 months, preceded by fulfilling certain Conditions Precedent within 240 days. A critical pr...

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...