In Brief
Tuppadahalli Energy India challenged the KERC and APTEL's interpretation of Clause 6.5(v) of a Power Purchase Agreement, arguing it was a one-time expenditure rather than an incentive for timely payment. The Supreme Court upheld the regulators' view that Clause 6.5(v) constitutes a rebate mechanism rewarding prompt payment of monthly invoices, distinct from interest penalties for late payment under Clause 6.2. Finding this interpretation plausible and raising no substantial question of law, the Court dismissed the appeals.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.