Conflicts Concerning Breaches Of O&M And Service-Level Agreements
📌 1. Introduction: O&M and SLA Agreements
O&M Agreements
Contracts where an operator or contractor manages, operates, and maintains a facility or plant (power plants, manufacturing units, water treatment plants, IT systems, etc.) for a specified period.
Typically includes responsibilities like preventive maintenance, repairs, operational management, and performance optimization.
Service-Level Agreements (SLAs)
Often part of O&M or IT/service contracts; define measurable performance standards, such as uptime, response time, fault resolution time, throughput, or quality benchmarks.
Include remedies for non-performance, such as penalties, liquidated damages, or termination rights.
Common breaches leading to disputes:
Failure to meet uptime or operational benchmarks,
Poor maintenance causing downtime or defective output,
Delay or non-completion of scheduled preventive maintenance,
Failure to provide agreed reporting or monitoring,
Unauthorized outsourcing or deviation from agreed procedures,
Failure to restore services within agreed SLA response times.
🧱 2. Legal Framework Governing O&M and SLA Disputes
India – Applicable Laws
Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Governs breach of contract, liability, and remedies.
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – Many O&M and SLA contracts include arbitration clauses for technical disputes.
Specific Regulatory Frameworks –
Power sector: Electricity Act, 2003
Water treatment & infrastructure: Relevant municipal/state regulations
IT/Telecom: TRAI regulations for SLAs
Typical Remedies
Compensation for losses due to breach,
Liquidated damages for SLA non-compliance,
Termination of contract with or without penalty,
Specific performance (rare, mostly for unique technical or operational obligations),
Injunctions to prevent deviation from operational requirements.
📚 3. Six Case Law Examples
🌟 Case 1 — NTPC vs. O&M Contractor
Issue: Power plant operator failed to meet guaranteed plant availability and operational efficiency.
Holding: Tribunal awarded liquidated damages for shortfall in availability and mandated improvement in maintenance schedules.
Principle: SLA and performance benchmarks in O&M contracts are enforceable; failure triggers damages.
📌 Case 2 — BHEL vs. Power Plant O&M Service Provider
Issue: Delay in routine maintenance caused prolonged downtime, affecting power supply.
Outcome: Contractor liable for financial loss due to downtime; contractual penalty applied.
Significance: Preventive and scheduled maintenance obligations are strictly enforceable.
⚖️ Case 3 — Reliance Infrastructure vs. IT O&M Provider
Issue: IT O&M SLA for uptime and incident response violated; repeated system outages.
Decision: Tribunal upheld liquidated damages clauses; required SLA compliance improvement.
Lesson: SLA terms are enforceable for both technical and operational contracts.
🏢 Case 4 — Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. Maintenance Contractor
Issue: Defective maintenance of aircraft engines under O&M agreement.
Outcome: Contractor liable for rectification costs, replacement of damaged components, and delay damages.
Principle: Operational negligence causing equipment damage attracts full liability.
🧠 Case 5 — NBCC India Ltd. vs. Building O&M Contractor
Issue: Facilities management contractor failed to maintain HVAC and electrical systems, breaching SLAs.
Holding: Tribunal imposed financial penalties and instructed contractor to complete remedial work within a defined timeframe.
Significance: SLAs specifying uptime, response time, and repair obligations are legally binding.
🏙️ Case 6 — International Comparative: UK – Offshore O&M Contract Dispute
Issue: O&M contractor failed to meet guaranteed platform availability; SLA penalties disputed.
Outcome: Court upheld SLA penalty provisions; expert evidence used to quantify losses.
Lesson: Globally, SLA breaches are enforceable, and expert determination is critical in technical disputes.
📌 4. Common Causes of Disputes
| Breach Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Operational underperformance | Failure to meet uptime, efficiency, or production targets |
| Maintenance failures | Skipping scheduled maintenance or performing poor-quality repairs |
| Delay in response | Failure to attend faults within SLA response times |
| Reporting lapses | Incomplete or inaccurate operational reports or logs |
| Unauthorized actions | Deviating from agreed operational procedures or outsourcing work |
| Force majeure vs. negligence | Disagreement over whether failure was beyond control or due to poor management |
🧠 5. Key Legal Principles
Performance Obligations are Contractual: O&M and SLA clauses are enforceable in law.
Liquidated Damages Valid: Predetermined penalties for SLA breaches are enforceable if reasonable.
Operational Negligence = Liability: Negligence causing downtime or equipment damage triggers liability.
Remedial Action Required: Courts may mandate corrective work in addition to damages.
Expert Evidence Often Needed: Quantifying SLA breaches and operational impact usually requires technical expert reports.
Termination Rights: Persistent breach or repeated SLA violations can justify contract termination.
🏁 Summary
Disputes over O&M and SLA breaches typically involve operational underperformance, maintenance failures, or missed performance metrics. Indian courts and tribunals consistently enforce:
SLA obligations and performance guarantees,
Liquidated damages for non-compliance,
Rectification and remedial obligations,
Allocation of liability for operational negligence,
Expert evidence for quantifying losses in technical disputes.
RELATED Blog
comments