M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission and Another

Decided On : Oct-04-2012

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

LAW: the Companies Act, Indian Electricity Act, section 12, section 13, the Electricity Act, Section 2, Section 9, the Electricity Act, Section 9, the Electricity Act 2003, the Electricity Rules, Section 9, the Electricity Act 2003, Section 42(2)and 42(4, the Electricity Act, the Electricity Act, the Electricity Act, Section 61, Section 86(4, the Tariff Regulations 2008, Section 181(2)(zd, the Electricity Act, Section 181 of the Electricity Act, Section 61, Section 181 of the Electricity Act, Section 61, Tariff Regulations, Section 61 of Electricity Act, Paras 10 and 11, Section 61, the Electricity Act, Tariff Regulations, Section 181(2, the Constitution Bench, the Tariff Regulations 2008, Section, section 86(1, the Electricity Act, Section 181 of the Act? ii, Section 61, Section 62(1, the Electricity Act, Section 181 of the Act, Section 3 of the 2003 Act, Section 61 of the 2003 Act, the Electricity Act, Section 61, Section 181, the Electricity Act, Section 61, Section 61, Section 62, Tariff Regulations 2008, Section 181(2, the Electricity Act, Section 181 of the Act, Section 181 of the Electricity Act, Section 61, Section 181 of the Act, section 42, the Grid Code, section 79, section 3, section 14, section 15, section 15, section 16, section 18, section 18, section 32, section 36, section 39, section 39, section 39, section 40, section 40, section 40, section 41, section 42, section 42, section 42, section 42, section 43, section 45, section 47, section 47, section 50, section 51, section 52, section 57, section 59, section 61, section 61, section 62, section 62, section 64, section 64, section 66, section 91, section 91, section 92, section 130, section 127, Section 61, Section 62 of the Act, Section 61, Section 181(3, Tariff under Section 62 of the Act, Section 61, Section 62, Section 181(3, Tariff under Section 62 of the Act, Section 86, Section 86(1, Section 86(4, Tariff Regulations 2008, Section 181 of the Act, Section 181 of the Act, Section 79 and Section 86, Section 178 of the Act, the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, Section 76(1, the Grid Code, Section 178, Section 79(1, Section 178, Section 178, Section 79(1, Section 79(1, Section 178, Section 178, Section 178, Section 178, Section 79(1)(g, Section 178, Section 61, Section 178, Section 178, Section 61, Section 178, Section 178, Section 79(1)(j, Section 178, Section 79(1)(j, Section 178, Section 178 of the Act, Section 178, Section 178, Section 178, Section 178, section 42, Section 86(1)(k, section 86(3, Section 79, Section 79(1)(g).Required, Section 86(1)(k).No, Section 178, Section 181, Section 178, Section 3 of the 2003 Act, Section 2(6, Section 177, Section 66, Section 3 of the 2003 Act, Section 181 of the Act 23, Section 86(1, Section 181 of the Act. ii, Section 181 of the Act, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 61 and 86(4, Section 78-A of the, Section 78-A of the Act, Section 49, Section 59, Section 15 of the, Section 65 of the 1948 Act, Section 66, Section 78-A, Section 12, Section 28, Section 28, Section 28(2, Section 28(2, Section 28(3, Section 12, Section 12, Section 108, Section 12, the Electricity Act, The Reform Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 11, Section 11(1)(c, Section 12, Chapter VII, Section 26(2, the Electricity Act, Section 26, the Reform Act, Section 26, Section 62, Section 63, Section 62(1)(a, Section 63, Section 62(1, Section 63, Section 63, Section 62(1, Section 62(1)(a, the Competitive Bidding Process, Section 62, the Competitive Bidding Process, Section 63, Section 86(1)(b, Section 62, the Competitive Bidding Process under Section 63, Section 62, Section 63, the Electricity Act, Section 61 and Section 86(1, Section 42(2, Section 86(1)(a, Section 86(1)(k, Section 61, Section 61, Section 61, Section 61, Tariff Regulations under Section 61, Section 61, 86, the Regulation 33, the Tariff Regulations, the Tariff Regulations 2008, Section 181(2)(zd, Regulations 33, section 42, the Electricity Act, section 42, Section 42, Section 62(3, Tariff Order for FY 2011-12, Tariff Year 2010-11

ORG: V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Appellant, MW, Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, Commission, Commission, CSS, 31.3.2011, CSS, Commission, Tariff Policy, the Central Government, the Haryana State Industrial Infrastructural Development Corporation Limited, Appellant, Captive Power Plant, MW, the Appellants Captive Power Plant, CPP, Appellant, Commission, Commission, Commission, Commission, Appellant, Plant, Plant, the Central Government, no.5, Commission, Appellant, Appellant, Respondents, Commission, Appellant, Commission, Appellant, Commission, Commission, M/s, Commission, the Government of Haryana, CSS, CSS, 31.3.2011, Commission, Tariff Orders, ARR, the Government of Haryana, CSS, The State Government, STU, State, Government, Commission, Commission, ARR/ Tariff, the Commission for FY 2009-10, D-7 / 2011, Commission, Commission, Commissions, Commission, DHBVNL, CSS, Commissions, CSS, the State Government, Commission, Tariff, Commission, ARR, CSS, Commission, CSS, the State Government, Commission, Tariff Order, Appellant, Counsel for the Appellant, Commission, Tariff Policy, the Central Government, the Tariff Policy, Commission, Tribunal, RVK Energy Ltd., ELR, APTEL, Haryana Commission, Honable Supreme Court, PTC India Ltd., the National Electricity Policy and Tariff Policy, Commission, RVK Energy Ltd., ELR, APTEL, the Commissions Tariff Regulations, the State Government, Commission, Tariff Order, j. Cross-subsidy, CoS, Commission, Haryana Commission, State Government, the Haryana Commission, Commission, Commission, Tribunal, NDPL Vs DERC, Commission, Commission, Honble Supreme Court, PTC India Ltd., CERC, the Regulatory Commission, PTC India Ltd., CERC, BRPL, DERC, Ors, ELR, APTEL, NDPL, DERC, Ors, APTEL, the Appropriate Commission, the Honble Supreme Court, APSEB, Commission, Appellant, Honble Supreme Court, the Honble Supreme Court, Commission, Commission, Commission, Commission, Commission, the Government of Haryana, Honble Supreme Court, Dularey Lodh Vs Third Addl, Commission, CSS, Haryana Commission, the Government of Haryana, DHBVN, Appellant, Commission, the Commission for FY 2009-10, Commission, this Honble Tribunal, DHBVN (R-2, Government of Haryana, the Commission for FY 2009-10, the Government of Haryana, Appellant, Commission, Haryana Commission, the Haryana Commission, the Haryana Commission, HERC, Conduct of Business) Regulations, Commission, Tribunal, ELR, APTEL 108, ELR, APTEL, Uttrakhand Commission, the Superior Court, the Honble Supreme Court, Federal Motors Pvt, District Magistrate Sultanpur, 01.11.2010, Commission, the Haryana Commission, Appellant, the Impugned Tariff Order, Appellant, Commission, Commission, Commission, Commission, Appellant, Commission, the Learned Counsel, i. Whether the Commission, Commission, Commission, Commission, Tariff Policy, i. Central Government, Commission, the Central Government, the State Commission, the National Tariff Policy, the Central Government, Commission, CSS, CSS, Commission, zb, the National Tariff Policy, the National Electricity Policy, Commission, The Honble Supreme Court, PTC India Ltd., the National Electricity Policy and Tariff Policy, Counsel for the Appellant, RVK, Chhatisgarh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Learned Counsel, Commission, inter alia, Commission, Commission, National Electricity Policy and Tariff Policy, Honble Supreme Court, PTC India Ltd., CERC, Commission, the Honble Supreme Court, Tribunal, Regulations, Commission, State Commission, the State Commission, the State Commission, Tariff regulations.—The Appropriate Commission, the Central Commission, the Appropriate Commission, the National Electricity Policy, Determination of tariff.—(1, Appropriate Commission, the Appropriate Commission, The State Commission, the State Commission, State, State, State, State Commission, the State Government, State, the State Commission, State Commission, the State Commission, the National Electricity Policy, The State Commissions, the State Commission, zb, the State Commission, the State Commission, the State Commission, the State Commission, Commission, This Tribunal, the State Commission, the Central Commissions Regulations, this Tribunal in Appeal, the State Commissions, State Commissions, the Central Commission, National Electricity Policy, State Commissions, the State Commission, the Central Commissions Regulations, the State Commission, the Central Commissions Regulations, the State Commissions own Regulations, The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, Terms and Conditions, the State Commission, Commission, Regulations, Commission, Tribunal, Commission, Regulations, Commission, the Tariff Policy, Tribunal, Commission, Commission, Commission, Counsel of the Appellant, Tribunal, RVK, Tribunal, Commission, the the Andhra Pradesh Commission, the Regulatory Commissions, the the Andhra Pradesh Commission, RVK, RVK, RVK, Regulations, the Andhra Pradesh Commission, the Andhra Pradesh Commission, the Andhra Pradesh Commission, the Andhra Pradesh Commission, RVK, Tribunal, the Haryana Commission, Commission, RVK, the Honble Supreme Court, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Euclid, Herrington, Cordozo, Commission, the Honble Supreme Court, CERC, the Honble Supreme Court, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Honble Supreme Court, Regulatory Commission, the Central Commission, Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, Court, the Central Commission, the Appellate Authority under Section 111, Order, Order, Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, Central Commission, the Central Commission, Power Purchase Agreements, the Central Commission, Emphasis, the Honble Supreme Court, PTC, Commission, Commission, the Central CommissionSection, the Central Commission, the State Commission, the Central Commission, Regulations, the State Commission, the Central Commission, the State Commission, Honble Supreme Court, PTC India Ltd., the National Electricity Policy and Tariff Policy, The Honble Supreme Court, the Regulatory Commissions, the National Electricity Policy, the National Electricity Plan, Honble Supreme Court, the Central Government, the State Governments and the Authority, National Electricity Policy, Tariff Policy, Central, the Regulatory Commissions, the Regulatory Commissions, the Central Government, the National Electricity Policy, the National Electricity Plan, Sections 79(4, the Central Government, the Tariff Policy, the Regulatory Commissions, the Regulatory Commissions, the Honble Supreme Court, Commissions, Commission, Commissions, Tribunal, Commission, Regulations, the Honble Supreme Court, Tribunal, RVK Energy Power Limited v The Central Power Distribution Company Limited, ELR, APTEL, KSEB, the Honble Supreme Court, The Central Government, State, Board, Board, State, State, Boards, Board, the Honble Supreme Court, the State Government, H.P., Board, Court, “the Board, the State Government, Board, Board, the State Government, the State Government, H.P., Board, the State Government, Board, Board, the State Government, Board, the State Government, Board, the State Government, Board, the Honble Supreme Court, Board, Board, the State Government, Board, the State Government, the State Government, the State Government, Board, State, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, BSES Yamuna Power Limited,(2007, the Government of Delhi under Section 12, the State Commission, The Honble Supreme Court, DERA, DERA, DERC, Government, DERA, Commission, DERC, DERC, DERC, DERC, DERC, DERC, DERC, DERC, DERC, the Policy Directions, DERC, Tribunal, RVK, Government under Section 78A of Electricity (Supply) Act, Delhi Electricity Reforms Act 2000, the Electricity (Supply) Act, Board, the State Government, Board, the State Government, Authority, Commission, Government, Government, the State Commission, the State Government, State Government, The Honble Supreme Court, State Commission, Commission, the Honble Supreme Courts, Commission, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Regulatory Commission, State, the Regulatory Commission, the Regulatory Commission, the Regulatory Commission, the Regulatory Commission, State, the Regulatory Commission, the Regulatory Commission, the State Govt, the Regulatory Commission, Court, Emphasis, the Honble Supreme Court, Tribunal, Polyplex Corporation vs, Uttrakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission, State Commission, the State Government, the State Commission, the State Government, The State Government, the State Commission, the State Commission, the State Commission, the State Government, Tariff Policy, the Central Government, this Tribunal, the State Commission, the State Commission, State, the State Commission, the State Commission, the Central Commission, the State Commission, the Central Commission, the State Commission, the Appropriate Commission, the Appropriate Commission, NTP, the State Commission, Appellants, NTP, the State Commission, the State Commissions, NTP, the State Commission, MPL, the State Commission, the Central Commission, NTP, MPL, the Central Commission, the Damodar Valley Corporation, Central Government, the Central Commission, MPL, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, MPL, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, NTP, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, NTP, the State Commission, MPL, the Central Government, the Central Commission, MPL, MPL, the State Commission, MPL, NDPL, the State Commission, NTP, Tribunal, Tribunal, Commission, Commission, Honble Supreme Court, Tribunal, BRPL, DERC, Appellant, RVK, the Tariff Policy, Commission, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Tariff Policy, the Andhra Pradesh Commission, the Regulatory Commissions, the Embedded Cost Method, Tribunal, the Regulatory Commission, the National Electricity Policy and Tariff Policy, the Central Government, Commission, Commission, Commission, Honble Supreme Courts, APTRANSCO Vs Sai Renewable Energy Pvt Ltd, Tribunal, BRPL, DERC, “61, Tariff regulations.—The Appropriate Commission, the Central Commission, the Appropriate Commission, the National Electricity Policy, Commissions, Commission, Appropriate Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the State Commissions, State Commissions, Parliament, the State Commissions, Regulations, the Central Commission, Every State Commission, the Central Commission, Commission, Commission, Commission, Appellant, the State Commission, the National Tariff Policy, Counsel for the Respondent, i. The Commission, Commission, Commission, Commission, This Honble Tribunal, the State Commission, the State Commission, the State Commissions, the State Commission, Tribunal, Commission, Commission, the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, Determination of Wheeling Tariff and Distribution and Retail Supply Tariff) Regulations, Commission, –, Commission, Commission, Commission, Tariff Order, Cross, the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, Determination of Wheeling Tariff and Distribution and Retail Supply Tariff) Regulations, DHBVN, Paise/unit)Cross, Paise/unit)1HT Industry337409722Street Lighting378415373Railway, Commission, the National Tariff Policy, Commission, the National Tariff Policy” 49, Appellant, Commission, Tariff Order, Commission, this Tribunal in Appeal, Determination, the State Commission, the State Commission, Table, CSS, Commission, CSS, CSS, Commission, CSS, Tariff Policy, Cross, the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, Determination of Wheeling Tariff and Distribution and Retail Supply Tariff) Regulations, CoS, the State Government, Commission, –, ARR / Tariff, Government of Haryana, Commission, ARR, the State Government, The National Tariff Policy, The National Tariff Policy, the Commission for FY, the State Government, DHBVN, Commission, the National Tariff Policy, Commission, the State Government, Commission, Consumer Category Cross, Emphasis, Commission, CSS, CSS, CSS, Commission, Commission, Commission, Tata Steel Industries Ltd, Tribunal, the National Electricity Policy, Tariff Policy, the State Commission, i. Cross, Cross, Commission, CSS, CSS, Commission, CSS, the Commission for FY 2011-12, CSS, the Commission for FY 2011-12, Commission, Commission, CSS, Commission, the State Commission

DATE: J. 1, the 1st Respondent herein, 27th May 2011, Annual, the year 2011-12, the year 2010-11, the year 2011-12, 1956, 10.4.2009, 2003, 2003, 2010, 2003, 2005, 2003.However, 2003, 2007-08, the year 2007-08 and, 2008-09, 4.12.2009, the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, 28th December, 2010, FY 2010-11, 04.12.2009, D-14 / 2010, 30th November, 2010, 14th March, 2011, FY 2009-10, the year 2011-12, 2010-11, the year 2009-10, FY 2011-12, 2007, 1222, 2003, 79, Para 18, 2010, 2007, 1222, 2008, 1995, 2007, 2007, 2008, FY 2010-11, 2010-11, 13.09.2010, FY 2010-11, 13.09.2010, 23.03.2009, 2009, the 2nd Respondent DHBVNL, 2003, 2010, 2003, 2003, 2010, 54-56, 2009, Para 31, Para 56, 2003, Para 7) ii, 2003, 1954, 1005, 2001, 1995, 1992, 2003, 2009, 2010-11, 2010-11, 1984, 13.09.2010, FY 2009-10, FY 2010-11, FY 2009-10, 2010-11, 27.05.2011, FY 2010-11, 2009-10, 2004, 2010, 2000, 2005, Para 9 and 10, 2009, Para 14, 2010, the year 2010-11, June 2010, 27.05.2011., 2003, 2003, 2003, 2003, 79, Para 18, 2010, 2003, 2010, 2003, one year, multi-year, one year, 2011, 2011, the year 2008, the year 2008, the year 2006-07, 2005, 2006 45, the year 2005-06, 2005-05, 2004, 2010, 1998, 2003, Para 18, 2010, 22, 24, 2007, 1222, 2008, 1995, 2007, 1948, 2000, Today, 1948, 1948, 2000 12, 2003 108, 2011)11SCC34, 1998, 3rd April, 1999, 2003, 1998, 34. 31, 2010, 32, no 106, 32, 28.08.2006, 35, 2010, 2008, 37, multi-year, 40, multi-year, multi-year, multi-year, multi-year, 44, 2008, 2008-09, 46, 2008, the year 2008-09, 2009-10, 2008-09, 2009-10, year 2009-10, 4.12.2009, 2008, FY 2011-12, 2009-10, 2011, the year 2011-12, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2008, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2010-11, 2009-10, 2003, 38, 39, 40, 2010-11, FY 2009-10, FY 2010-11Sr, the financial year 2011-12, 2010-11, 2010-11, 2010-11, every year, FY 2011-12, FY 2011-12Sr, 2010-11, 2011-12, 53, 2010-11, 2011-12, 54, 2010, 55, 2010, the year 2011-12, 2009-10, 58, year 2011-12, 2009-10, the year 2009-10, 04.12.2009

GPE: Manesar, Manesar, Gurgaon, the State of, Impugned, Counsel, India, Kerala, Impugned, The State of Kerala, Ld, NDPL, the Surcharge Formula

PERSON: Haryana, Haryana, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Haryana, Southern Haryana, – Suzuki, Haryana, Haryana, Maruti Suzuki India, 01.11.2010, 01.11.2010, Impugned Order, 27.5.2010, Mr M G Ramachandran, Full Bench, Kusumam Hotels, Madan Vs State, Serve, 01.11.2010, n., Regulations, Gopal D. Thirthani, Madras, Sri Lakshmindta, Zilla Vyavasayadarula Sangham, Haryana, 01.11.2010, Kanpur, Haryana, 01.11.2010, 01.11.2010, xiv, B. M. Verma Vs UERC, Anr, Atma Ram Properties, Kumar Singh, Regulations, Appellant, Subsidy Surcharge, Order, Regulations, zh, Regulations, Regulations, Formula, N. R. Vairamani, ¦, Morris, Regulations, Order, Kusumam Hotels, Kumar Madan, “42, ¦, ¦.”, Serve, Paise, Paise, Paise, Paise, ¦, ¦, Appellant, 01.11.2010, 01.11.2010

CARDINAL: 66, 2, 3, 4, 5, 66, 5, 8), 2.8.2010, 13.9.2010, 29.11.2010, 2.11.2010, 3.2.2011, one, 2.8.2010, 27.5.2011, 6, 4, 86, 4, 19, 4, 13, 213, 3, 4, 3, 2, 27.05.2011, 13.09.2010, 49, 7, 4, 4, 2011, 944, 7, 1, 1, 3, 343, 6, 235, 2, 2, 3, 18.01.2011, 17.01.2012, 11, 1, 2, 6, 359, 1, 9, 02.08.2010, 5, 02.08.2010, 86(3, 9, 178, 181, 2, 4, 86, 4, 19, 4, 11, 4, 12, 42, 2, 61, 62, 86, 1, 2, 3, 4, 181, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 8), 1, 3, 13, one, 131, 131, “â€, 14, 33, 15, 8.5.1, 44, 8.5, 47, 48, 248, 249, 16, 21.9.2005, 29.8.2006, two, ‘ratio, 17, one, 8, 10, 2, 537, 11, one, two, 12, one, one, 18, 4, one, 19, 2, two, 178, 181, 19, 4, 21, 86(4, 176, 180, 86(4, 19, 6.1.2006, One, 86(3, 25, 26, 4, 86, 4, 13, 213, one, 1-10-1999, 8-11, 3, 4, 3, 57, 27, 28, 1, 2, 1, 2, 29, 8.7.2010, two, one, 11(1)(e, 30, 41,42 and 43, 106, 107, 5.1, two, 5.1, one, 33, 107, 31, 5.1, 5.1, 5.1, 33, 5.1, 5.1, 5.1ofNTPand, 5.1, 5.1, 5.1, 34, 5.1, 41,42 and 43, 106, 107, 36., 42, 30, 38, 39, 41, 42, 79, 43, 45, 2, 17.01.2012, 11, 33, 1, ‘open, 2, 48, 33, 50, 11, 51, 52, 2009- 10, 3.2, 1.HT, 3.3-, 1.HT, 102, Two, 102, 56, two, 0.72, 0.58, 4.69, 0.58, 57, 59

PRODUCT: Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Regulation 33, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, decision…, Appellant, Polyplex, The Full Bench, Polyplex Vs UERC, Appellant, Appellant, Tariff Order, Appellant

TIME: 1.11.2010, 01.11.2010 i.e.

WORK_OF_ART: The Appellant Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Appellant (Petition No. 5 of 2010, Preamble, Authority, Competitive Bidding Process, Regulations, The Regulations of the Commission

QUANTITY: about 600 acres, 600 acres, 1948 Act, 1948 Act

PERCENT: more than 51%, more than 50%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, ±20%, 20%, 20%, 12.4%, 20%

ORDINAL: 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, First, first, second, fourth, second, fourth, third, first, first, first, Second, first, Secondly, second, second, third, third

LOC: the Appellant herein, Govt, the Surcharge Formula, Respondent

NORP: d., Hindu

FAC: Regulation 33, R-2, Regulation 33, Fourth Question

EVENT: the 2003 Act, Sections 61, 79