Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: appropriation no 3 act 2005 Court: appellate tribunal for electricity aptel Page 11 of about 304 results (0.092 seconds)

Chhattisgrh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd Vs. Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... while powers and jurisdiction of the commission are strictly only those specifically and explicitly conferred upon it by the statute, the commission proceeded upon the erroneous consideration that , since there is no provision in the act enabling the state government to declare the status of a captive generating plant and/or captive users, the commission would have to take on the responsibility of declaring a captive generating plant as a captive one and monitoring it on an annual basis ..... rule 3 is reproduced below: rule 3 of electricity rules, 2005 requirements of captive generating plant (1) no power plant shall qualify as a captive generating plant under section 9 read with clause (8) of section 2 of the act unless- (a) in case of a power plant- (i) not less than twenty six per cent of the ownership is held by the captive user(s) and (ii) not less than fifty one per cent of the aggregate electricity generated in such ..... of transmission facility shall be determined by the central transmission utility or the state transmission utility, as the case may be: provided further that any dispute regarding the availability of transmission facility shall be adjudicated upon by the appropriate commission. ..... means the non-discriminatory provision for the use of transmission lines or distribution system or associated facilities with such lines or system by any licensee or consumer or a person engaged in generation in accordance with the regulations specified by the appropriate commission. .....

M/S Pune Power Development Private Ltd. Pune Vs. Karnataka Electricity ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... power by distribution licensee, respondent no.2 from trading licensee, the appellant falls within the regulatory jurisdiction of the state commission of karnataka under section 86(1)(b) of the act; (iv) the transaction is for the procurement of power from the appellant required by the distribution licensee, respondent no.2 for its distribution and retail supply activities in the ..... the appellant has contended that m/s bses rajdhani power limited was a necessary party to the dispute, in view of the fact that the appellant was merely acting as broker in the transaction between respondent no.2 and bses rajdhani power limited for supply of electricity and as such bses rajdhani power limited ought to have been impleaded as one of the ..... with licence issued by the appropriate commission for undertaking transmission, distribution ..... appellant, both the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed a petition before the state commission, respondent no.1 under section 86(1)(f) of the electricity act, 2003 seeking for compensation from the appellant for non supply of agreed 105% of power till may, 2009. ..... power of the appropriate commission for adjudication of disputes between distribution licensee and trading licensee has been vested with the state commission under section 86(1)(f) of the act. 25. ..... (iii) whether the appellants are the generating company within the meaning of section 2(28) of the act in respect of the project in question which alone would confer the jurisdiction on the state commission .....

Kanan Devan Hill Plantations Company Pvt Ltd, Munnar Vs. Kerala State ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... as the revision was effected after the constitution of the commission and without its approval, the revision is violative of subsection (1) of section 22 of the regulatory commission act in para 4.2 of the order the commission stated that the commission seeks to keep in abeyance the classification of the licensees in two categories g i and g ii by the board, since these are based on mere presumptions on the character of the ..... is important is that the appellants contention that it is a separate category because of its own consumption being less than 50% has no relevance in view of the fact that the provisions of section 62 (3) and section 45(4) of the act rejected such classification and, therefore, the commission was justified in making its own impugned order dated 25.5.2010 effective with effect from 1.12.2007. ..... they also stated that change of grid tariff category was not permissible in accordance with provisions of sec 46 of electricity (supply) act, 1948 and therefore it was illegal in para 1.6.3 of the order states that tata tea limited have stated that since the tariff revision was made without referring the mater to the commission it was ..... (3) the appropriate commission shall not, while determining the tariff under this act, show undue preferences to any consumer of electricity but may differentiate according to the consumers load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity during any specified period or the time at which the supply is required or .....

Rajasthan Engineering College Society, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Electricit ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... whether the state commission has acted consistent with the provisions of the electricity act, the policies notified by the central government under section 3 of the electricity act, 2003, tariff regulations, 2009 and the binding precedents of this tribunal in determining the appropriate cost to supply and ..... section 62(3) of the act reads as under: (3) the appropriate commission shall not, while determining the tariff under this act, show undue preference to any consumer of electricity but may differentiate according to the consumers load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity during any specified period ..... as to whether the state commission can ignore the phrase purpose for which the supply is required appearing in section 62 (3) of the electricity act, 2003 while classifying consumers in various categories and classifying the educational institutions in different categories merely because of the difference in ownership 9. ..... can ignore the phrase purpose for which the supply is required appearing in section 62 (3) of the electricity act, 2003 while classifying consumers in various categories and classifying the educational institutions in different categories merely because of the ..... while fixing retail tariff, can differentiate between the consumers only on the following grounds which are specified in the section 62(3) of the act and not on any other ground: 1) load factor 2) power factor 3) voltage 4) total consumption of electricity during ..... (2005 .....

Spencerand#8217;s Retail Limited Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulator ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... 6) learned counsel contended that section 61(g) of the electricity act, 2003, inter alia, provides that the tariff should progressively reflect the cost of supply and there should be reduction of the cross subsidy as specified by the appropriate commission and that the national tariff policy requires the commission to prescribe a tariff trajectory in a manner that the cross subsidy is reduced to the extent of + 20% by the year 2010-11. ..... as under: the cross subsidies have to be brought down by degrees without giving a tariff shock to the consumers..as long as cross-subsidy is not increased and there is a roadmap for its gradual reduction in consonance with section 61(g) of the act of 2003 and the national tariff policy, determination of tariff by the commission on account of the existence of cross subsidy in the tariff cannot be flawed. ..... ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that the decision of the commission is patently contrary to the provisions of the electricity act, 2003, the national tariff policy notified by the central government and the principles well settled by this tribunal in a number of cases ..... we ruled as under: ..however, we are constrained to observe, that this is not in line with the spirit of the act wherein it is postulated that the cross subsidies have to be transparent and gradually brought down. ..... 124, 125, 177 of 2005 and 18 of 2006 in the matter of kashi vishwanath steel ltd. ..... 124 of 2005, decided by this tribunal on 02.06.06. .....

In the Matter Of: Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Dagan ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... and 33 of 2008 have raised the following points: (i) the state commission having issued notice to the respondents under section 142 of the electricity act should have confined itself with deciding whether the penalty should be levied or not and should not have directed the respondents merely to pay cross subsidy ..... the judicial discretion of the state commission to decide whether to impose any punishment or not as it considers appropriate as against the utilities even when there is any violation. ..... the situation described by the cserc the generating plants set up by the sponge iron industry may be treated as co-generation plants acting as independent power producers, which would be at liberty to use part of their power themselves and sell the surplus power to any ..... according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the state commission having initiated proceedings under section 142 of the act and having found that there is a violation, ought to have imposed some punishment on the respondents and as such the impugned ..... mandated and as such they cease to be a captive co-generation plants, issued show cause notice to the respondents in all these appeals in suo motto petition 14 and 15 of 2008 and 17 of 2008 under section 142 of the electricity act in order to verify whether they fulfill the conditions to qualify as a captive generation plants. ..... a perusal of section 142 of the act makes it very clear that is only directory since the expression used in the said section is only may and .....

Maharashtra State Electricity Vs. Maharashtra Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL53

..... the prudence of the proposed expenditure and estimated impact on tariff and thereafter, shall either: (a) give an in principle approval to the investment plan submitted by the distribution licensee, with such modifications or conditions as the commission deems appropriate; or (b) reject the investment plan submitted by the distribution licensee and require the distribution licensee to submit a fresh investment plan taking into consideration such factors as the commission may deem necessary.6. mr. ..... in which this tribunal has held that utilities have the freedom to plan with respect to their investment, standardization and upgrading of the system and that the kerc had not acted reasonably and fairly in interfering with the intended projects, which was only within the domain of the transmission utility. ..... the respondents to allow a fresh opportunity to the appellant to explain technical and commercial impact of the project proposal with economic advantage and justify the entire project in question and in case the respondent is satisfied, it may appropriately revise the impugned sanction orders. ..... the respondent, merc in its counter affidavit has alleged that regulations 71.5 grants power to commission to give in principle approval to the investment plan of the distribution licensee with modifications or conditions as it may deem appropriate. ..... merc has framed regulations (terms and conditions of tariff) regulation 2005 referred to as " tariff regulations", which have statutory force. .....

Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. West Bengal State Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL17

..... be appropriate to first deal with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had failed to raise the issue before us in the appeal filed against the order of the commission, dated november 21, 2005. ..... also canvassed that the appellant had not taken up the plea in the earlier proceedings before this tribunal, emanating from the order of the wberc, dated november 21, 2005, that the wheeling charges should be based on the cost of network used for wheeling electricity at a particular voltage viz., 33 kv. ..... we hope and trust that such a situation will not arise and the commission will act in accordance with our orders, unless & until they are stayed or set-aside by the hon'ble supreme court or any other court of competent ..... by its order dated november 16, 2006 again came to the conclusion that the wheeling charges payable by any distribution licensee in 2005-06 for using the distribution system and/or associated facilities of cesc limited shall be 83.54 paisa/kwh.6. ..... on october 31, 2003, the appellant filed an application under sections 9 and 42 of the electricity act, 2003, before the commission seeking permission for open access to wheel surplus captive power of an approximately 9 mw from its power plant to its ..... -subsidization or levying of surcharge is neither contemplated nor permissible in the electricity act, 2003 specially with respect to wheeling of captive power. j. ..... the commission ought to have acted in consonance with the aforesaid decision of .....

Hindalco Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known as Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.) ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Delhi

..... these provisions need to be set out for facility of reference.regulation 14.3(b) of the west bengal electricity regulatory commission (terms & conditions) regulations, 2005:wheeling chargethe wheeling charges will represent the charges for the use of distribution systems or associated facilities of a distribution licensee for conveyance of electricity on distribution systems ..... " clause 4.2 of wberc (terms and conditions for open access - schedule of charges, fees & format for open access) regulations, 2005.wheeling chargeswheeling charges for use of distribution system or associated facility of a distribution licensee for use of open access customers including captive generating plants shall be derived ..... appropriate to first deal with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had failed to raise the issue before us in the appeal filed against the order of the commission, dated november 21, 2005 ..... we hope and trust that such a situation will not arise and the commission will act in accordance with our orders, unless & until they are stayed or set-aside by the hon'ble supreme ..... on october 31, 2003, the appellant filed an application under sections 9 and 42 of the electricity act, 2003, before the commission seeking permission for open access to wheel surplus captive power of an approximately 9 ..... surcharge is neither contemplated nor permissible in the electricity act, 2003 specially with respect to wheeling of captive ..... to have acted in consonance with .....

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Maharas ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... (h) multi year tariff 1) section 61 of the act states that the appropriate commission, for determining the terms and conditions for the determination for tariff, shall be guided inter-alia, by multi-year tariff principles. ..... in cases of lack of reliable data, the appropriate commission may state assumptions in myt for first control period and fresh control period may be started as and when more reliable data becomes available. ..... appropriate capital costs required for predetermine deficiency gains and /or for sustenance of high level performance would need to assessed by the appropriate commission. ..... capital investments necessary for revocation and modernization and an incentive framework to share the benefits of efficiency improvement between the utilities and the beneficiaries with reference to revised and specific performance norms to be fixed by the appropriate commission. ..... there is no such requirement as per the 2003 act or the regulations made thereunder. ..... concerned: (i) actual expenditure for the purposes of truing up for fy 2006-07 shall be considered by commission subject to prudence check along with annual performance review as per the regulation 17 of the merc (terms and conditions of tariff) regulations, 2005. ..... 139 of 2009 order dated 31.5.2008, the state commission has allowed the following amounts approved in apr order for fy 2007-08: a) under recovery in 2005-06 rs. .....