Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: appropriation no 3 act 2005 Court: appellate tribunal for electricity aptel Page 1 of about 304 results (0.102 seconds)

Uttar Pradesh Power Corpn. Limited and Another Vs. Noida Power Corpn. ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... sub-titled power procurement agreement and jurisdiction of the commission, the commission reflects on the provisions of section 86(1)(b) of the electricity act 2003 read with section 60 of the act and observes that the power procurement rate has to be approved by the commission which was not done in this case and that the commission has the authority to issue appropriate directions if a company enters into an agreement by abusing its dominant position causing adverse effect on competition. ..... uppcl, for additional power supply over and above the 45 mva that it had been supplying to the npcl, that on november 08, 2005 the respondent agreed that once a new 400/132 kv pali sub station was commissioned the supply of 15 mva would be made available to the petitioner, that in the meeting in lucknow the petitioner was offered an additional ..... the commission then recalls the following part of high courts order dated 10.11.2005: the principle enunciated in the sixth schedule to govern such determination of tariff by the licensee for its consumers. ..... the bulk supply tariff continued to be so for the subsequent years namely for 2005-06 and also for the ensuing years 2006-07 which is in question. ..... the commission was thus aware that even if the tariff had been fixed for the year 2005-06, it would have been more than rs.1.897 per unit. 62. ..... the next letter in this connection dated 22nd february, 2005 only exhorted the uppcl to develop infrastructure to provide non discriminatory open access. .....

Vidarbha Industries Association Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL1116

..... mseb moved the commission under section 23 of the electricity act, 2003 for evolving appropriate measure arising out of the demand and supply gap of electricity in the state in case no. ..... erstwhile mseb went before the hon'ble supreme court and vide order dated 4^th may, 2005, the hon'ble supreme court issued further directions. ..... after hearing all the concerned including the consumers representatives and the members of the appellant association, the commission issued a summary of directions as an emergent measure on 26^th april, 2005, which included the introduction of levy of load management charge.15. ..... after affording necessary opportunities and issue of public notices, the commission also held a public hearing as well as a technical validation session, ultimately passed orders dated 4^th march, 2005, with respect to load shedding and other related issues. ..... 4 of 2005 passed on 4^th may, 2005, by the second respondent (ii) to examine legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 26^th april, 2005, and 4^th may, 2005, passed in case no. ..... 4/2005 as the same is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and not permissible under section 23 of the electricity act , 2003 under section 62(6) read with 94(f)) of the electricity act, 2003 2. .....

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Vs. Noida Power Company Ltd. and Uttar

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... "power procurement agreement & jurisdiction of the commission", the commission reflects on the provisions of section 86(1)(b) of the electricity act 2003 read with section 60 of the act and observes that the power procurement rate has to be approved by the commission which was not done in this case and that the commission has the authority to issue appropriate directions if a company enters into an agreement by abusing its dominant position causing adverse effect on competition. ..... uppcl, for additional power supply over and above the 45 mva that it had been supplying to the npcl, that on november 08, 2005 the respondent agreed that once a new 400/132 kv pali sub station was commissioned the supply of 15 mva would be made available to the petitioner, that in the meeting in lucknow the petitioner was ..... npcl and uppcl was for a period of 4 1/2 years which would have ended in 1998.it was however extended from time to time till 10th november, 2005.however, the tariff determined by the uperc and approved by the high court was for the period 1993-94 to 1999-2000. ..... the commission then recalls the following part of high court's order dated 10.11.2005: the principle enunciated in the sixth schedule to govern such determination of tariff by the ..... tariff continued to be so for the subsequent years namely for 2005-06 and also for the ensuing years 2006-07 which is in ..... the next letter in this connection dated 22nd february, 2005 only exhorted the uppcl to develop infrastructure to provide non .....

Tata Power Company Limited Bombay House and Others Vs. Maharashtra Ele ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

..... section 15, grant a license to any person- (a) to transmit electricity as a transmission licensee; or (b) to distribute electricity as a distribution licensee; or (c) to undertake trading in electricity as an electricity trader in the area as may be specified in the license; provided also that the appropriate commission may grant a license to two or more persons for distribution of electricity through their own distribution system within the same area, subject to the conditions that the applicant for grant of license within the ..... r-2 reply) maintainability: the honble commission may under the provisions of regulation 21 of the merc distribution open access regulations, 2005, section 86(1)(a) and 86(1)(f) of electricity act, 2003 consider the submissions made above and provide appropriate directives and guidelines for resolving the issues highlighted above . ..... commission may under the provisions of regulation 21 of the merc distribution open access regulations, 2005, section 86(1)(a) and 86(1)(f) of electricity act, 2003 consider the submissions made above and provide appropriate directives and guidelines for resolving the issues highlighted above . ..... by the order dated 15.10.2009 u/s 94 (2) of the act while providing for some interim arrangement held that the state commission would consider the issue of cross subsidy surcharge on the strength of open access separately in an appropriate proceedings later. 36. ..... would be appropriate to quote the preamble of the electricity act, 2003. .....

In the Matter Of: Shahlon Industrial Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Surat Vs ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... vehemence that it is the responsibility of the state commission to determine whether or not, a particular generating station falls under the category of captive power plant with reference to the definition given in section 2(8) r/w section 9 of the act r/w rule 3 of the electricity rules 2005 and to take appropriate action, if any with reference to the regulation 14(2) of the state commission open access regulations ..... group captive generation plants are concerned, no regulatory function in the act of 2003 for the state commission is envisaged in consonance with the national electricity policy (paras 5.2.2, 5.2.24 to 5.2.26 of the policy) the responsibility to find out as to whether or not a particular generating station falls under the category of captive power plant as defined under the act, and if it looses the said status, to take appropriate action with reference to the breach of the open access regulations lies ..... the provisions of section 129 gives jurisdiction of the state commission for giving appropriate directions with regard to the breach, if any, committed by the licensees and generating ..... it is open to the state commission to delegate powers, to monitor and take appropriate action through the chief electrical inspectors, which has been rightly done in this case ..... r-8 in the appeal have not complied with the requirements for qualifying as a captive power plants and accordingly, giving appropriate directions to the chief electrical inspector, regarding the monitoring etc. .....

The Tata Power Company Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the India ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... 8.6 with regard to disallowance of contribution towards contingency reserves, it has been submitted that as per the sixth schedule of the electricity (supply) act, 1948 and the regulations63.7 of the merc tariff regulations, contingency reserves that are appropriated have to be invested in certain approved securities and the income accrued to such investments have to be passed on to the consumers as other income in the aggregate revenue requirement of the distribution business and secondly, the amounts in contingency reserves ..... 16.11 with respect to denial of capitalization of rs.90 crores claimed towards capitalization of land (tpc-t) it is submitted that neither the tariff regulations, 2005 nor the accounting standards define the term capitalization and as such the accounting treatment of capitalization of land should be as per the regulated industries of the country like mtnl, power grid corporation of india ltd. ..... now, the commission while allowing tata powers claim for financial year 2004-05 and financial year 2005-06 disallowed the interest/carrying cost of rs.137 crores and drew down the contingency reserves of rs.121 crores to meet revenue gap ..... and for tariff determination for the fy 2009-10, the appellant mentioned that the cost allowed by the tribunal by the order dated 12.05.2008 can only be recovered in fy 2009-10 and since cost pertain to fy 2004-05 and 2005-06, the interest for 3 to 4 years would accrue and the appellant would be entitled to the said interest. .....

Reliance Infrastructure Limited, (Formerly Reliance Energy Limited), M ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... (2) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 235 of the companies act, 1956, the investigating authority may, at any time, and shall, on being directed so to do by the appropriate commission, cause an inspection to be made, by one or more of his officers, of any licensee or generating company and his books of account; and the investigating authority shall supply to the licensee or generating company, as the case ..... with the provisions of regulation 59 of the merc (terms and conditions of tariff) regulations, 2005, the commission has accorded in-principle approvals to the investment plans submitted by r-infra-d from ..... avoided. we are, however, not unmindful that right from the year 2005 the commission has been giving diverse directions upon the appellant on ..... purchase costs on retail tariffs as discussed earlier, rinfra-d was able to meet its demand for power from its own generation at dahanu and from tpc upto the year 2005-06 as per the allocation and price fixed by merc ..... . merc had notified the tariff regulations in august 2005 and in terms of regulation 24, prior approval of the commission was required to give effect ..... . it is submitted that under regulation 23 of the tariff regulations, 2005 the licensee is duty bound to prepare a long term power procurement plan and to purchase power ..... . the commission in its order dated december 9, 2005 in case no.3 of 2003 in the matter of dispute between tpc and rinfra-d on principles of agreement (poa) dated january 31, 1998 .....

Municipal Corporation of Greater Vs. Maharashtra Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... licensees or from other sources through agreements for purchase of power for distribution and supply within the area of supply and for meeting the obligations under the licence and under the provisions of the act, provided that such procurement shall be made in an economical manner and under a transparent power purchase and procurement process which shall be required to be in accordance with the regulations, guidelines ..... 44 (2a) of the 1948 act imposing conditions 1(d) and 10 of the letter dated july 18, 2000 (exhibit "hhh" hereto) and that no part of the additional power generated by bses from such generating unit, directly or indirectly, be supplied to any part of mumbai and/or to tata power's licensed area of supply; c) this hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting ..... to point out that even historically best has demonstrated a higher off take of power from tpc except in 2005-2006. ..... to regulation 7.1, 7.2 and 24.1 of the merc (terms and condition of tariff) regulations, 2005.84. ..... of 2005 where this tribunal has held as follows: (i) on the point a, we hold that the regulatory commission has neither the power nor the authority nor jurisdiction to compel the developers to ..... 2005- ..... extract of various regulations and orders as below: maharashtra electricity regulatory commission (terms and conditions of tariff) regulation, 2005.... ..... and tpc and submitted to merc on july 13, 2005. .....

Lanco Amarkantak Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regula ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... f of the preamble to the agreement, it is said: a petition for approval of tariff for sale of the above power shall be filed before the appropriate commission and the tariff as approved by such appropriate commission will be applicable for purchase and sale of the above power by ptc based on the cerc norms, subject to the ceilings as agreed upon by the ..... ensure reasonable prices of electricity; (b) transmission of electricity; (c) wheeling of electricity; (d) retail sale of electricity; provided that in case of distribution of electricity in the same area by two or more distribution licensees, the appropriate commission may, for the promoting competition among distribution licensees, fix only maximum ceiling of tariff for retail sale of electricity. 8. ..... , we cannot alter the provisions of section 62(1) of the act by a process of interpretation requiring the appropriate commission to determine the tariff for supply of electricity by a generator to an intermediatory or to a trader or supply of electricity by a distributor to a trader or supply of electricity by a trader to any other person, especially when it is not stated in section 62(1) of the act that the appropriate commission shall determine tariff for supply of electricity by a generator ..... others in petition no.1 of 2005 reported in 2008 energy law reporter ..... on 30th may, 2005, the respondent no.3 entered into power sale agreement (psa for short) with the respondent no.2 which is also a ..... 138 of 2005 in the matter of approval .....

Siel Limited Vs. the Punjab State Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL931

..... of electricity at an adequate and improving level of efficiency; (d) the factors which would encourage efficiency, economical use of the resources, good performance, optimum investments, and other matters which the state commission considers appropriate for the purpose of this act; (e) the interests of consumers are safeguarded and at the same time, the consumers pay for the use of electricity in a reasonable manner based on the average cost of supply of energy; (f) the ..... the aforesaid ** method, it can be safely stated that cross subsidy has been lowered during the year 2004-05 and was not increased during the year 2005-06.it may not be proper to consider the question whether cross subsidy has increased or decreased during the year 2005-06 by making a comparison with the tariff for the year 2004-05 as the tariff for the year, 2004-05 was reduced on the basis of an ..... the commission in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (5) of section 62 of the act of 2005 and section 86(l)(a) thereof, is mandated to determine separate tariff for generation, supply, transmission, distribution, wheeling and retail sale of electricity within the state irrespective of the fact whether the state ..... the learned counsel for the industrial consumers further submitted that cross subsidy component in the impugned tariff order for the year 2005-06, has gone up, which violates the express provisions of the statute requiring the commission to ensure that the current level of cross subsidy is .....