Omnicore Weekly #268 - 17 July 2026

Dear Patrons & Readers,

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited

Versus

Adani Green Energy (UP) Limited, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Limited, Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission & State of Karnataka Department of Energy

Background:

1. M/s. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. which is a Distribution Licensee in the State of Karnataka has sought review of common judgement dated 14th May, 2024 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 181 of 2020, 235 of 2020, 247 of 2020, 1 of 2021, 125 of 2022, 130 of 2022, 166 of 2022 and 192 of 2022 whereby this Tribunal held that the delay on the part of the Appellant M/s Adgani Green Energy (UP) Limited (Respondent No. 1 in this Review Petition) in achieving Scheduled Commercial Operation Date (SCOD) of the solar power project was occasioned by the circumstances beyond its control constituting Force Majeure events entitling it for extension of timelines as per the Power Purchase Agreement executed by it with Discoms. Consequently, the Impugned orders of the Commission were set aside and Appellant was held entitled to tariff at the rate of Rs.4.79 per unit. At the same time, the Respondent -Discoms were directed to refund the entire amount to the Appellants which had been deducted as liquidated damages from its invoices.

2. We may note here that the said judgement dated 14th May, 2024 had been assailed by the Review Petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 2722 of 2025, 2723 of 2025, 2724 of 2025, 2725 of 2025, 2726 of 2025, 2727 of 2025, 2728 of 2025, 2729 of 2025, 2730 of 2025, 2731 of 2025 and 2732 of 2025 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17th February, 2025. However, while dismissing the civil appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at the request of Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner, granted it liberty to file a review on the factual errors apparent on the face of record as conveyed by the Learned Senior Counsel. We feel it apposite to reproduce the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :-

“Delay condoned. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment as in an earlier Civil Appeal being Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited v. Adani Green Energy (U.P.) Limited & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8331 of 2024] pertaining to the very same issues raised and involved before us in the present civil appeals, this Court has already refused interfere with the impugned judgment.

In view of the above, we are inclined to dismiss the present civil appeals, being devoid of merits. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there are few factual errors apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment and, therefore, liberty may be given to the appellants to file a review only on those aspects. We make it clear that the present civil appeals, are dismissed.

However, limited liberty is given to the appellants to seek a review before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity on the factual error, if any, that has occurred within the parameters of review for an error apparent on the face of the record. For the aforesaid reason, a limited liberty is also given to the appellants to challenge the impugned judgment, in the event that the review applications filed by the appellants are dismissed, touching upon any factual error apparent on the face of the record.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

3. Thus, a limited liberty has been given to the Review Petitioner to seek review of the judgement in question, before this Tribunal on the factual errors, if any, that have occurred within the parameters of review or an error apparent on the face of record.

4. Accordingly, the instant Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. We have heard Learned Counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the record.

27. Thus, it is evident that there is elaborate discussion in the judgement under review on each of the issues which have been agitated by the Review Petitioner in this petition. In the judgement under review, this Tribunal has come to a particular finding upon consideration of the relevant contractual provisions as well as the rival submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, those findings cannot be altered in the review proceedings. Well reasoned and well considered judgement, even though erroneous, does not fall within the ambit of review. There is a clear distinction between a judgement suffering from error patent on the face of record and erroneous judgement. Review Petition is maintainable only on the former case whereas in the latter case the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to assail the order/judgement by way of appeal in the higher forum/Court.

28. By way of the instant review petition, the petitioner is actually seeking a relook of the judgment under review in the hope to discover any flaw or fault in the same, which is not permissible in law. The review petition manifestly appears to be appeal in disguise and thus, does not fall within the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

29. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in the judgment under review dated 14.05.2024 and has failed to bring the case within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions referred to hereinabove. The review petition is sans any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Highlights from the week of
10 July 2026 to 17 July 2026