The High Court · 2025

issues, the submissions made by the parties shall be detailed. II. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

10. Mr. M.G. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contends that disputes concerning tariffs must be adjudicated by the appropriate commission, in this case, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (‗CERC‘). He further submits that only the CERC can refer such disputes to arbitration, if at all it is necessary. The submissions of Mr. Ramachandran may be summarised as under: (i) Article 4.4.1 of the PPA governs the right to contract capacity and energy, and stipulates that compensation for non-supply of minimum energy shall be determined by the appropriate commission/authority. (ii) Article 16.3.1 pertaining to dispute resolution provides that disputes relating to tariff determination, changes in tariff, or claims that could result in tariff changes must be adjudicated by the appropriate commission. He submits that this clause is broad in scope and covers the present dispute, rendering Article 16.3.2 (pertaining to arbitration) inoperative and non-est in law. He emphasized the term ―involving‖ Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:03.11.2025 17:03:10 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV in Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act and referred to other clauses of the PPA to support his contention. (iii) Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is inapplicable due to Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act, which excludes its application where another enactment, such as the Electricity Act, governs. (iv) Section 158 of the Electricity Act provides for arbitration only when directed by the appropriate commission, with the arbitrator nominated by the commission upon application by either party, thereby excluding the application of Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act. (v) Section 174 of the Electricity Act grants overriding effect to the Electricity Act over other laws, except those specified in Section 173, in case of inconsistency. Thus, the Electricity Act prevails over the Arbitration Act. (vi) Reliance was placed on decisions in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd.1, M.P. Power Trading Co. Ltd. v. Narmada Equipments (P) Ltd.2 Coastal Andhra Power Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.3, PTC India Ltd. v. Jaiprakash Ventures Ltd.,4 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr.5, Solar Energy Corporation of India Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory