| Case Title | Nabha Power Limited & Anr. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Anr. |
|---|---|
| Introduction | The case states that whether a press release from 01.10.2009, announcing modifications to the Mega Power Policy, constitutes “law” under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for fiscal benefits related to customs duty exemptions. |
| Factual Background | The appellants argued that they considered the announced modifications to Mega Power Policy in their bid, expecting benefits on customs duty. However, the respondent disputed that the policy change occurred only after official notifications on 11.12.2009 and 14.12.2009, thus not binding on the date of bid submission. |
| Legal Issues |
|
| Applicable Law |
|
| Analysis | The court analyzed the definitions and conditions under the PPA, ruling that a press release is not binding law. The formal notifications on 11.12.2009 and 14.12.2009 constituted the legal change. This change meant that benefits should pass to the respondent, as these occurred after the bidding date. |
| Conclusion | The court held that the change in law occurred with the notifications on 11.12.2009 and 14.12.2009. The appellants’ claims based on the press release of 01.10.2009 were dismissed, as it did not constitute enforceable law. |
| Current Scenario | The judgment emphasized clarity in defining what constitutes “law” under contractual agreements and reinforced that official notifications are necessary to substantiate fiscal benefits under government policies. |
CASE SUMMARY – In this case, the Supreme Court of India examined whether a 01.10.2009 press release on Mega Power Policy modifications could be considered “law” under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The appellants claimed fiscal benefits based on this release, which they factored into their bid. However, the court ruled that a press release is not binding law and that the official change occurred only after notifications on 11.12.2009 and 14.12.2009. Consequently, the fiscal benefits applied after the bidding date, favoring the respondent.
“The certainty of law is paramount; binding obligations arise only from duly constituted legal enactments, not mere announcements or intentions.”
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ ALAO – CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE UTTAR PRADESH BOARD OF MADARSA EDUCATION ACT 2004
