One day late cost a solar firm Rs 1.74 per unit. Then the Supreme Court counted the days.

BESCOM said the solar plant was commissioned one day late. The developer said it was right on time. The answer came down to a single word in the contract: 'from'. On a Bangalore morning in 2017, a solar farm began feeding power to the grid — the low hum of inverters filling the air as the first electrons flowed. BESCOM, the state electricity utility, saw a clock that had already run out — and cut the tariff by nearly Rs 1.74 per unit.

That one day was the difference between Rs 6.10 and Rs 4.36 per kilowatt-hour. Plus Rs 20 lakh in damages. The developer had read its own contract correctly — but it took three courts to prove it.

When the PPA turned into a calendar puzzle

The Karnataka government wanted 1200 MW of solar power across 60 taluks. Private companies bid. Emmvee Photovoltaic set up two special purpose vehicles — the respondents in this case — to build solar plants in Bidar and Bagepalli. Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs — the contracts that govern how electricity is sold) were signed and approved by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) on 17 October 2016. The stack of signed PPAs sat on the table, each page stamped and initialled, binding the parties to a strict timeline.

The PPA said the plant must be commissioned within 12 months from the effective date — which both sides agreed was the date of KERC approval. The developer injected power into the grid on 17 October 2017. BESCOM said the deadline was 16 October 2017. The developer said it was 17 October 2017. One day.

BESCOM's argument: both dates count

BESCOM pointed to Article 1.2.1(m) of the PPA. That provision said that when a period runs 'from' a specified date 'till' or 'until' another date, both dates are included. So if the clock started on 17 October 2016, and you count both 17 October 2016 and 17 October 2017, the 12-month period ends on 16 October 2017. The plant was commissioned on 17 October 2017 — one day late.

The developer pointed to a different provision. Article 1.2.1(k) said that a reference to 'month' means a calendar month. And Article 21.1 defined 'Month' as a period of 30 days from and excluding the date of the event. So '12 months from the effective date' meant: take the effective date (17 October 2016), exclude it, count 12 calendar months forward. That lands on 17 October 2017 — the exact date power was injected.

The first two rounds: KERC and the Appellate Tribunal

KERC heard the dispute first. The Commission applied Article 1.2.1(m) — the provision that includes both dates — and ruled against the developer. The scheduled commissioning date was 16 October 2017. The plant was late. Tariff cut and damages stood. The developer's representatives sat in the hearing room, the silence broken only by the rustle of paper as the order was read out.

The developer appealed to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in Delhi. The Tribunal reversed KERC. It held that Article 1.2.1(k) read with the definition of 'Month' in Article 21.1 was the applicable provision. The scheduled commissioning date was 17 October 2017. No delay. No tariff reduction. No damages. The developer's legal team exhaled — but the fight was not over.

BESCOM appealed to the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court looked at: one word, two provisions

The Supreme Court bench — Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Vineet Saran — had a narrow question: when the PPA says '12 months from the Effective Date', does the effective date get counted or not? The courtroom fell quiet as the judges opened the thick file of pleadings, the smell of old paper and ink filling the space.

The court examined the architecture of the PPA. Article 1.2.1(k) stated that any reference to 'month' means a calendar month. Article 21.1 defined 'Month' specifically: a period of 30 days from and excluding the date of the event. Article 1.2.1(m) dealt with periods running 'from' a date 'till' another date — and included both dates.

The court held that Article 1.2.1(m) did not apply. Why? Because the PPA did not use the phrase 'from' a specified date 'till' or 'until' another specified date. It used '12 months from the Effective Date'. The word 'month' was defined in Article 21.1 — and that definition excluded the date of the event. Article 1.2.1(k) reinforced this by saying a 'month' means a calendar month. Together, they meant: start counting from the day after the effective date.

The court also noted Article 1.2.4, which explicitly excluded the application of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (the default law for counting time periods). The parties had chosen their own counting method in the contract. That choice had to be respected.

Why the precedents lined up behind the developer

The court cited Investors Compensation Scheme Limited v. West Bromwich Building Society — a 1998 English case that established the modern approach to contract interpretation: the court looks at what a reasonable person would understand the contract to mean, not just the literal words. It also referred to Smt. Kamala Devi v. Seth Takhatmal & Anr., where the Supreme Court had held that when a period is computed 'from' a date, the general rule is to exclude that date unless the contract says otherwise.

The court found that the PPA's own definition of 'Month' — excluding the date of the event — was consistent with this general rule. Article 1.2.1(m) was a specific exception for periods that run 'from' one date 'till' another. Since the PPA used 'from' without 'till' or 'until', the exception did not apply.

The Supreme Court observed: "The definition of 'Month' in Article 21.1 specifically excludes the date of the event. When read with Article 1.2.1(k), it is clear that the 12-month period must be computed by excluding the effective date. Article 1.2.1(m) has no application here."

A lesson from another corner of the law

The dispute echoes a recurring tension in Indian contract law: how to count time when the contract uses 'from' without 'to' or 'until'. In Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna & Ors. v. M/s Green Rubber Industries & Ors., the Supreme Court had similarly held that when a statute or contract uses 'from' a specified date, the general rule is to exclude that date unless a contrary intention appears. The PPA in this case showed that contrary intention — but only for periods framed as 'from...till...'. The developers' period was framed as '12 months from', not 'from...till...'. The distinction was decisive.

The case also illustrates the importance of cross-checking definitions. The PPA's Article 1.2.1(m) might have applied if the contract had said 'from 17 October 2016 till 16 October 2017'. But it did not. It said '12 months from the Effective Date'. The definition of 'Month' in Article 21.1 — which excluded the date of the event — was the governing provision. The drafter who inserted that definition may not have foreseen this dispute, but it saved the developer Rs 1.74 per unit.

THE PLAY: When drafting a time period in a commercial contract, specify whether the start date is included or excluded — and check whether your definition of 'Month' overrides your general counting clause.

The Supreme Court dismissed BESCOM's appeals. The tariff stayed at Rs 6.10 per unit. The damages vanished. The developer had read its own contract correctly — and one word, 'from', saved it Rs 1.74 per unit. The bench granted four weeks to implement the Appellate Tribunal's order, and the courtroom emptied, the silence giving way to the shuffle of papers and the low murmur of lawyers packing their briefs.