Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: bombay aerial ropeways act 1955 maharashtra section 28 review of orders under section 10 or 21 Court: appellate tribunal for electricity aptel Page 1 of about 1 results (0.180 seconds)

The Tata Power Company Limited, Rep. by B.J. Shroff Vs. Maharashtra El ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... s) the statement of the learned advocate general before the high court to the effect that the memorandum dated 7.05.2010 was not the order under section 11 is required to be considered by minutely perusing the contents of the said memorandum coupled with the provisions of the electricity act, 2003. ..... before the bombay high court the government of maharashtra swore an affidavit on 11.06.2010 to the effect that the government did not exercise its power under section 11 or section 37 of the electricity act, 2003 and that the memoranda dated 7.05.2010 and 19.05.2010 are merely advisory in nature. ..... government, then it does not lie in their mouth to say even on 12.6.2010 after the government has made it clear before the high court that the two memoranda were not issued under section 11 or 37 of the act that it would still await further order of the government, and again say in this appeal that the government stand made through the learned advocate general before the high court does not bind the msldc and ..... the appellant had already claimed power purchase cost to the merc by way filing annual performance review and, therefore, claim for compensation in the present appeal amounts to enjoying the double claim for which, the appellant is not entitled and in this view of the matter the appeal is not maintainable. 30. ..... electricity is not an essential commodity within the meaning of the provisions of the essential commodities act, 1955 or any other statute. .....