The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has allowed ACME Solar Holdings Limited and its special purpose vehicle, ACME Sikar Solar Private Limited, to proceed with their appeal after condoning a delay of 368 days in filing the case. However, the Tribunal directed the companies to pay ₹1.5 lakh as costs to the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) within four weeks. The order was issued on July 3, 2026, by Officiating Chairperson Seema Gupta and Judicial Member Virender Bhat.
The dispute relates to an order passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) on November 25, 2024. ACME had sought a three-month extension to commission its 300 MW grid-connected solar power project. The company had also requested CERC to prevent CTUIL from taking any coercive action regarding its connectivity to the Bikaner-II transmission system. While CERC granted the extension until April 21, 2025, it directed ACME to pay compensation to CTUIL to retain its connectivity. ACME challenged this compensation requirement before APTEL.
ACME explained that the delay in filing the appeal was caused by several connected legal and regulatory proceedings. The company stated that it paid ₹9.5 crore to CTUIL to retain its connectivity and continue work on the project. Later, it faced additional project delays and sought another 65-day extension from CERC. During this period, CTUIL revoked the project’s connectivity, but CERC later ordered that the revocation should remain in abeyance.
The company also approached the Delhi High Court regarding delays in the commissioning of the Khetri-Narela transmission line. According to ACME, CTUIL acknowledged that the transmission line would not be ready until December 2025. Full connectivity for the project was finally restored on December 14, 2025, following a final order of CERC. ACME argued that it waited until these related issues were resolved to avoid filing multiple legal proceedings.
CTUIL opposed the request to condone the delay. It argued that ongoing proceedings in other forums cannot extend the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal. CTUIL also alleged that ACME was engaging in forum shopping and had failed to act with due diligence. It relied on Supreme Court judgments that stress strict compliance with limitation periods under the Electricity Act, 2003.
After considering the arguments, APTEL adopted a liberal approach. The Tribunal observed that limitation laws are meant to prevent unnecessary delays but should not defeat substantial justice. It noted that ACME had shown a genuine intention to complete the project by paying ₹9.5 crore and pursuing related legal remedies. The Tribunal also excluded 60 days spent on a review petition, reducing the effective delay to 308 days.
Based on these facts, APTEL concluded that the delay was neither deliberate nor malicious and allowed the appeal to proceed. The Tribunal directed ACME to pay ₹1.5 lakh to CTUIL within four weeks and warned that failure to make the payment or submit proof of payment would result in the appeal being dismissed as time-barred. It also granted the respondents six weeks to file their replies.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
