THE HP POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. versus M/S BRUA HYDROWATT PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1360 · Decided: 14-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1360 : 2025 INSC 680
The HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. 
v. 
M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3919 of 2023)
14 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity was correct in 
reversing the Order passed by Himachal Pradesh Electricity 
Regulatory Commission thereby exonerating respondent from 
bearing the entire construction cost for the Bay.
Headnotes†
Doctrine of Privity – Whether the appellant can recover dues and 
other charges despite being a stranger to the internal tripartite 
agreement (ITA) dated 27.12.2019 among the respondents:
Held: The respondents executed an ITA wherein they agreed to 
pool in the power to be generated from their respective generative 
stations at Bay and the entire cost of the terminal, including metering 
arrangements, were to be shared between them in proportion to 
their individual generating capacities – Separately, the appellant 
executed a Connection Agreement with only respondent no. 1, 
wherein respondent no. 1 acted as lead partner of the consortium 
of the respondents, had the liability to pay for cost of construction, 
additional charges, and O&M Charges to the appellant in relation to 
the Bay – Respondent no. 1 was to ensure the payment to be made 
to the appellant and thereafter seek reimbursement in case of non-
payment of the amount by the other generating companies within 
the time stipulated – Respondent no. 3 defaulted in its payment, 
the appellant raised a demand from the respondent no. 1 citing sole 
liability of the said respondent as per Connection Agreement dated 
02.07.2021 – Since the appellant was not a party to the ITA which 
was executed by and between the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3, thus 
appellant could not have and cannot claim proportionate shares as 
per the installed capacity of the project from Respondent No. 02 and 
Respondent No. 03 – The right, to claim and seek recovery of the 
liability from Respondent No. 02 and Respondent No. 03 would be 
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
1361
The HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v.  
M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
only with respondent no. 1 as per the ITA – Appellant is not privy to 
the ITA executed among the respondents, therefore does not have 
any right to claim for dues or liabilities from respondent no. 2 & 3 – 
As ITA does form part and parcel of the Connection Agreement 
executed between appellant and respondent no. 1, the exact wording 
only binds respondent no. 1 for the payment of concerned cost and 
charges – APTEL’s judgment is based upon wrong assumptions and 
misreading of the terms of agreement thereby ignoring the basic 
principle that a party not privity to the agreement or contract cannot 
be, unless the context otherwise makes it apparent, made liable for 
any term(s) and condition(s) unrelated to it.
Case Law Cited
Essar Oil Limited v. Hindustan Shipyard Limited and Others [2015] 6 
SCR 924 : (2015) 10 SCC 642 – relied on.
Jamna Das v. Pandit Ram Autar Pande and Others, 1911 SCC 
OnLine PC 35 – relied on.
Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861) 121 ER 762 – relied on.
List of Acts
Electricity Act, 2003; The Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory 
Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005.
List of Keywords
Doctrine of Privity; Connection Agreement; Transmission Licence; 
Hydro Electric Process; Stranger to an agreement cannot enforce.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3919 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2023 of the Appellate 
Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi at AN No. 30 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Anand K. Ganesan, Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal, Amal Nair, 
Ms. Shivani Verma.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tarun Johri, Ankur Gupta, Vishwajeet Tyagi.
1362
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Augustine George Masih, J.
1.	
This Civil Appeal assails the Judgment dated 17.03.2023 in Appeal 
No. 30 of 2023 (“Impugned Judgment”) by the Appellate Tribunal for 
Electricity at New Delhi (“APTEL”) which reversed the findings returned 
vide Order dated 27.12.2022, by Himachal Pradesh Electricity 
Regulatory Commission at Shimla (State Commission) in Petition 
No. 35 of 2022, holding M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd., Respondent 
No.01 herein (“BHP Ltd”) liable to bear the entire cost for Bay at the 
66kV Switching Station at Urni (“Bay”), which was constructed

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.