THE HP POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. v. M/S BRUA HYDROWATT PVT. LTD.
Discusses contract law principles, including privity of contract, relevant to various legal domains.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 680
Decision Date: 14-05-2025
List of Laws
Electricity Act, 2003; Companies Act, 2013; Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005; General Principles of Law
- Electricity Act, 2003: The judgment discusses Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which classifies M/s Contransys Pvt Ltd as a generating company. Section 86(1)(f) read with Section 158 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is mentioned in relation to BHP Ltd moving the State Commission through Petition No. 35 of 2022. Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is mentioned as the provision under which BHP Ltd moved the APTEL vide Appeal No. 30 of 2023.
- Companies Act, 2013: The judgment mentions that M/s Contransys Pvt Ltd is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. No specific sections of the Act are discussed.
- Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005: The judgment refers to Regulations 53, 68, and 70 of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005, in the context of BHP Ltd's petition before the State Commission. The judgment does not provide specific details about the content or interpretation of these regulations.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the Doctrine of Privity, citing the decision in *Tweddle v. Atkinson* and *Jamna Das v. Pandit Ram Autar Pande and others*. It also references *Essar Oil Limited v. Hindustan Shipyard Limited and Others* to illustrate the principle that a party not privy to a contract cannot sue for recovery of payment. The judgment emphasizes that a party not privy to an agreement or contract cannot be held liable for terms and conditions unrelated to it, unless the context makes it apparent.
🔒 For Members Only