Facts:

• Adani Power Ltd. (Appellant) was a power-generating company.
• Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (Respondent) was a holding company engaged in the business of bulk purchases from the power generators and supply to distribution companies in the State of Gujarat.
• The Appellant and Respondent entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The Appellant based its PPA bid on Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation's (GMDC) assurance to supply coal. When GMDC failed to supply, the Appellant informed the Respondent and eventually terminated the PPA.
• GUVNL(Respondent) filed a petition before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') over the validity of the termination and Adani Power's obligations under the PPA.
• The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) ruled in favour of the Respondent, holding that the Appellant's termination of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was illegal. The Appellant appealed this decision to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, which upheld the GERC's ruling.
• The Appellant's appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
  

Background/ Procedural Posture:

• GUVNL(Respondent) filed a petition with the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) under Sections 86(1)(f) and 95 of the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking adjudication of the dispute with Adani Power Ltd.
• The GERC ruled that Adani Power's termination of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was illegal and directed Adani Power to supply power to GUVNL as per the terms of the PPA.
• The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in Appeal No. 184 of 2010, dated 07.09.2011 dismissed the appeal filed by Adani Power and confirmed the earlier judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission) dated 31.08.2010.
• Hence, aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the Appellant approached this Court.
  (Paragraph 1)

Main Issue:

Whether the courts have the right to interpret the contract liberally if literal interpretation fails? (Paragraph 9-12)