Unforeseeable Event: If the increase in coal prices was unforeseeable and beyond EnerPower's

control, it could potentially qualify as a force majeure event. This would depend on whether the
increase was due to external factors that were not reasonably anticipated at the time of contract
execution. If such price fluctuations were a known risk in the energy industry and could have been
reasonably anticipated, EnerPower's claim for force majeure might be challenged on this ground.

Interference with Performance: EnerPower could argue that the significant increase in coal prices has
interfered with their ability to perform their contractual obligations. If the increase has resulted in
higher operational costs that impact their financial viability or ability to generate electricity at a
competitive price, it could potentially meet this criterion.

Notice and Mitigation: EnerPower would likely need to follow any notice and mitigation
requirements specified in the force majeure clause of their contract. They may need to notify the
relevant parties and take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the increase in coal prices on
their performance.

1. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954 SC 44: In this case, the Supreme
Court held that for an event to qualify as force majeure, it should be beyond the control of
the parties and must make the performance of the contract impossible. This case supports
the argument that unforeseeable events beyond the control of parties can be considered
force majeure.

2. Energy Watchdog v. CERC, (2017) 14 SCC 80: This case emphasized that the term "change in
law" in a power purchase agreement should be construed liberally to include any change in
legislation, rules, or regulations. The court's interpretation supports the idea that regulatory
changes can be considered as change in law and, thus, as force majeure events.

Taylor v. Caldwell, the principle of force majeure, although not explicitly named as such, played
a significant role. The situation involved unforeseen and uncontrollable events that rendered the
performance of the contract impossible.

In the context of force majeure, the case demonstrates the concept that when an unforeseen
event beyond the control of the parties occurs, making the performance of a contract objectively
impossible, the affected party may be excused from fulfilling its obligations under the contract.
This aligns with the essence of force majeure clauses, which are contractual provisions designed
to address situations where performance becomes impossible or impracticable due to
extraordinary and unforeseen events.

In Taylor v. Caldwell:

The contract involved the hire of a music hall for a series of concerts.

An accidental fire destroyed the music hall before the concerts could take place.

The destruction of the music hall due to the fire made it physically impossible to hold the
concerts.
The court ruled that the destruction of the music hall by the fire discharged both parties from
their contractual obligations. This ruling was based on the doctrine of "impossibility of
performance," which is a fundamental concept underlying many force majeure clauses.

From a force majeure perspective, the case illustrates the principle that when an unforeseen
event (in this case, the fire) occurs, preventing the parties from performing their contractual
obligations (holding the concerts), the parties are excused from performance.

1. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1001: The court held
that increased costs due to currency fluctuations did not qualify as force majeure under the
contract. Economic difficulties that do not make performance impossible or fundamentally
change the nature of the contract cannot be considered force majeure.

2. In Standard Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s G. S. Global Corp & Ors, where apart from question of
fact and factual foundations of the case Bombay High court gave a ratio decidendi as mere
hardship to the parties under performance of the contract is not covered under definition of
impossibility and avoids the relief under force majeure clause.