In the Matter of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, and Others

Decided On : Jul-21-2011

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

LAW: a Petition 107 of 2007, the Appeal No.35, the Electricity Act, Clause 79, Section 79

GPE: MR, Madhya, UPSEB, UPSEB, UPSEB, UPSEB, States, Madhya Pradesh, Rihand, Rihand, States, Lucknow, States, Madhya Pradesh, States, UPSEB, UPSEB, UPSEB, UPSEB, States, States

PERSON: JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, 13.3.1964, Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Madhya, Madhya, Crores, Madhya, Appeal, 30.4.1991, Madhya Pradesh, Rs.34 Crore, Madhya, Rs.32 Crores, Rihand HPS, Balkishan Das, Maula Bux Vs, Matatila HPS, Matatila HPS, Rs.834 Crs, Matatila HPS, Rihand, 8220;An, Rihand, Rihand, UPSEB, Rs.43.71 Crore, Matatila HPS

ORG: J. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd, The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, Madhya Pradesh Power Trading Company Ltd., the Central Commission, Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board, the Power Trading Licensee, the State of Uttar Pradesh, The State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Hydro Electric Projects, Hydro Power Project&#8217, Hydro Power Project&#8217, The Rihand Hydro Electric Power Project, MW, Matatila Power Project, MW, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Power Stations, the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Central Zone Council, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, MW, Rihand Hydro Power Station, MW Power, Matatila Hydro Power Station, Matatila Power Station to, Rihand Hydro Power Station, the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Rihand Hydra Power Station, Rihand Hydro Power Station, the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, the Madhya Pradesh Trading Company, the Central Commission, Rihand Hydro Power Station, Matatila Hydro Power Station, Rihand, Matatila Power Stations, Central Commission, the Power Stations, Uttar Pradesh, the Central Commission, The Central Commission, the Central Commission, this Tribunal in Appeal No.35, Tribunal, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Madhya Pradesh Trading Company, the Central Commission, Tribunal, Tribunal, Supreme Court, Appeal, this Tribunal in Appeal No.35, the Hon’ble, Supreme Court, the Central Commission, Tribunal, Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal, The Learned Counsel, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, RAPP, RAPP, Central Commission, The Learned Counsel, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Commission, the Learned Commission, the Central Commission, Commission, Hydro-Electric, CEA, Government of Madhya Pradesh, DO, Deptt of Energy, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Respondents, UPSEB, Rs.48.464 Crore, Rs.20.62 Crore, the Standing Committee of the Central Zonal Council, Respondents, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Respondents, Respondents, Respondents, the State of Madhya Pradesh, Respondents, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, Appellant, the Uttar Pradesh Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, UPPCL&#8221, the Standing Committee, Madhya Pradesh, the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Matatila, the State Government, Rihand, Madhya Pradesh, RAPP, the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, The Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Appellant, State, the Central Commission, the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, the State of Madhya Pradesh, Rihand, Matatila Hydor Power Stations, the Central Commission, Hydro, CEA, RAPP rate, RAPP, RAPP rate plus, UPSEB, RAPP rate plus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Fateh Chand Vs, UOI, Madhya Pradesh, State, the State of Madhya Pradesh, Rihand Hydro Power Station, Matatila Power Station, Rihand Project, Matatila, Rihand, Matatila Hydro Power Stations, Madhya Pradesh, Rihand, Unscheduled Interchange, UI, the Unscheduled Interchange, UI, Unscheduled Interchange, UI, Matatila Stations, UI, the Central Commission, Appellant, Appellant, the Central Commission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Central Commission, State, the State of UP, Tribunal, the Central Commission, UP State Electricity Board, Matatila Hydel, the Appellant UP Power Corporation Ltd., Matatila Hydel Power Stations, the Inter-State Transmission, the Central Commission, Central Commission, Inter-State, the Central Commission, Appellant, the State of UP, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant, Rihand, the Matatila Power Project, the Central Commission, Applicant, Respondents, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, UPSEB that “all&#8221, NTPC, DO, the Central Commission, Appellant, The Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, the Central Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, The Central Commission, RAPP, the State of Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rihand, Unscheduled Interchange, UI, The Cen+tral Commission, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board, MP Electricity Board, Electricity Board, the Central Commission, Appeal

PRODUCT: Appellant, Appellant, Boards, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Para 14, Respondent, Agreement, Memorandum, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Respondent

DATE: the 1st, the year 1962, the year 1965, November, 1992, 15.10.2005, the period between 1994 and 2000, 2008, 2008, No.151 of 2008, 2008, 13.2.2009, 12.11.2008, 2008, No.151 of 2008, September 1990, January, 1989, December, 1988, 29.8.1996, September, 1994, 7/8.6.2007, several years, 8.9.2005, 8.9.2005, 15th Oct, 2005, June, 1977, 1963, 1969, 21, November, 1992, July, 2002, March, 2008, July, 2002 to March, 2008, May, 2010, four decades, 2003, 2003, 2005, 2007, 38, 2007, 1992, 32, the years 1982-83, the year 1982-83, several years, June, 1977, November, 1992, July, 2002, March, 2008, 36

CARDINAL: 2, 12.11.2008, two, 300, 30, 45, one third, 10, 9.9.2005, 27.2.2008, 27.2.2008, 12.11.2008, 9.1.2009, 12.11.2008, 3., 12.11.2008, 4, 5., 6., one, 9, 6.1.1976, 1.9.1967, 30.9.1974, 7/8.6.1977, 1.10.1974, 9.9.1994, 1.7.1994, two, 18.2.2000, 30.6.2000, 8/9.9.2005, two, 35, 10, 11, 12, 13, 11.11.94, 11.11.94, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 6.1.1976, 16.12.1973, 6, 1.9.1967, 30.9.1974, 1.10.1974, 19, 20, 1, 515, 2, 22, 23, 24, 25, 9.9.2005, 29.5.2010, 192, 26, 27, 28, 29, 9.1.2009, two, 37., 1, 1, 30, two, two, 31, 33, two, 1.4.1982, 51, 19.10.1993, two, 34, 35, 1, 2, 16.12.1973, 6, 1.9.1967, 30.9.1974, 1.10.1974, 3, 4, two, 1.4.1982, two

PERCENT: 15%, 15%, 15%, 15%, 15%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 5%, two percent, two percent, 10%, two percent

LOC: Petition, Respondent, Petition, Respondent, Respondent, Respondent, Respondent, Respondent, Respondent

ORDINAL: second, first, first, fifth, second, second, second, 2nd, second, second, 3rd, second, 4th, second, second, second, third

MONEY: 8220;34, 8220;(1, 8220;(3)….It, 8220;2.01, 8220;The, 8220;In, 8220;46, 8220;36, 8220;all&#8221

EVENT: Rs.20.62 Crore, Rs.20.62 Crore

WORK_OF_ART: the Memorandum of Understanding, the Chairmen of UPSEB, Appellant, the Second Respondent

TIME: the minutes, These minutes, the minutes, the minutes, the minutes

QUANTITY: 140 Square miles, 23,320 Acres