Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
..... electricity industry in an efficient, commercial, economic and competitive manner in the national capital territory of delhi. under section 3, the delhi electricity regulatory commission has been constituted to exercise the powers conferred on it and to perform the functions assigned to it under the said act.9. section 11 enumerates the functions of the ..... from rs.2600 crore to rs.3450 crore based on assumptions about key parameters which were not provided to the commission at the time of issuance of amendment to the policy directions. subsequently, the gnctd provided the copy of financial restructuring plan prepared at the time of privatization upon a specific request from ..... as if the same is repayable or to be realized or salvaged or set off during the transitory period, viz., the period ending with 31st march, 2007, unless an extraordinary tariff upward revision is to be allowed. in fact no amortization schedule and other details been provided for. same challenge squarely applies even .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
..... build, own and operate basis and discussions you had with government. i am directed to inform you that your offer for partabpur thermal power project along with subsequent amendments has been approved by the government with the following conditions: 1. that you will initial ppa for partabpur project with upseb within a month of receipt of this ..... accordance with the guidelines issued by the central government," to meet the conditions of section 63 of the act. for a slew of other reasons also, the tariff proposed in the petition by the petitioner cannot be said to have been result of competitive bidding process. when the proposal was invited, the state of up was the only beneficiary. however, ..... with a prayer for fixing tariff as agreed to and included in the ppas subject to adoption and approval by cerc. the impugned order dated 23rd march, 2007 was passed on this tariff petition. the appellant sought a review of this order. the review petition was dismissed vide an order dated 27th august .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
..... electricity and also reduces cross subsidies in the manner specified by the appropriate commission by an amendment under electricity (amendment) act, 2007 w.e.f. 15.6.2007. thus the intention of the parliament in amending the above provisions of the act by removing provision for elimination of cross subsidies appears to be that the cross subsidies may be ..... then the tariffs have to be based on the cost to supply a consumer category. however, it is not the intent of the act after the amendment in the year 2007 (act 26 of 2007) that the tariff should be the mirror image of the cost of supply of electricity to a category of consumer. 18. section 62 ..... charges for the distribution system assets and oandm expenses, etc. due to complexities involved in determining the segregated cost of service and in light of amendment of 2007 of the act removing the provision for elimination of subsidies. 37. we, however, direct the state commission to determine the cross subsidy for each consumer category after .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
..... statutes concerned, as they are with a economic and social activities, the regulation must of necessity, receive so wide an interpretation that in certain situations, it must exclude competition to the public sector from the private sector. 39. in view of the above dictum laid down by the honble supreme court in the decisions referred to above ..... rebate till such time it opens lc and directed the tneb to refund or adjust the excess rebate amount within a period of 2 months. so, on 31.12.2007 acting on the proposal of the nlc, the tneb opened a back-up lc and has been availing the benefit of 2% rebate upon making the payment of the bills ..... . in support of his submissions and the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited the following decisions: (1) u.p. panchayat adhikari sangh v. daya ram saroj. (2007) 2 scc 138. (2) dawoodi bohra community v. state of maharashtra. (2005) 2 scc 673. (3) bharat petroleum corporation limited v. mumbai shramik sangha. (2001) 4 scc 448. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
..... the appellant is the generator. the power generation project of the appellant which was selected by the tamil nadu industrial development corporation limited through the tariff based industrial competitive bidding process as a diesel generator based power project with hsfo as fuel. this was in the year 1996. (ii) in respect of this power project, ..... power plant and the appellant developed the power plant called m/s. arkay energy limited (energy) rameswaram. both the new plants were commissioned during the year 2007. it is pertinent to note that the availability of gas to all the consumer in the perungulam region started to reduce. the appellants new power plant has ..... appellant during the pendency of drp no.14 of 2010 praying for the direction for the amendments to ensure and insulate the operation of the generating station so that the station would be functional in alignment within the electricity act, 2003 and regulations. 27. while discussing this issue, let us see the question framed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
..... supply of electricity and also reduces cross subsidies in the manner specified by the appropriate commission by an amendment under electricity (amendment) act, 2007 w.e.f. 15.6.2007. thus the intention of the parliament in amending the above provisions of the act by removing provision for elimination of cross subsidies appears to be that the cross subsidies may be ..... followed, then the tariffs have to be based on the cost to supply a consumer category. however, it is not the intent of the act after the amendment in the year 2007 (act 26 of 2007) that the tariff should be the mirror image of the cost of supply of electricity to a category of consumer . 19. the national ..... tribunal in the various cases. 47. the findings of the tribunal in the various cases are summarized as under keeping in view the amendment made in the electricity act, 2003 in the year 2007: i) the pooled power purchase cost from all sources of supply to the distribution licensee has to be used for determination of cost .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
..... consumers.? 83. the primary object, therefore, was to free the generating companies from the shackles of licensing regime. the 2003 act encourages free generation and more and more competition amongst the generating companies and the other licensees so as to achieve customer satisfaction and equitable distribution of electricity. the generation company, ..... power to the distribution licensee. in fact the distribution licensees were procuring power from gmr against short term contract at market determined price after following competitive bidding process, from november 2008 onwards. therefore, the distribution licensees cannot raise the extraneous issue of fiscal benefits given by the state government ..... a valid and binding contract between the said parties. thus, the state government had in effect unilaterally amended the said valid contract under the guise of the statutory powers under section 11(1) of the act. f) during the period from 15.11.2008 to 31.12.2008, the appellant had supplied .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
..... -wise cost of supply should have been within 20% of the cost of supply at the respective voltage of supply. the legislature by amending section 61(g) of the electricity act by act 26 of 2007 by substituting eliminating cross subsidies has expressed its intent that cross subsidies may not be eliminated. 17. the tariff policy provides that the ..... ) regulation, 2009 and to permit the railways to deposit in terms of bank guarantee in place of cash/bank draft till the said amendment? as regard the issue of exemption from security deposit, the electricity act, 2003 does not exempt consumers like railways from maintaining security deposits. regulation 1.6 and 1.7 of the mperc (security deposit) regulation ..... fy 2006-07 and was removed for railway traction to be fixed on single part tariff from fy 2007-08 to 2009-10. considering clause 8.4.1 of the national tariff policy and section 45(3) of the electricity act, 2003, we observe that the impugned order of the state commission of two part tariff is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
..... the npcl is bound to pay the amount for which uppcl raised the bill. the impugned order to this extent has to be upheld. the part of the order which amends the bulk supply tariff for 45 mw cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 8. one of us (technical member), on the other hand, in a ..... violative of the clause 5.3.3. of the national electricity policy and clearly attracts the provisions of section 60 of the act providing suo motto power to the commission to issue directions to prevent adverse effect on competition, even if the agreement is valid. 9. the judgment of the technical member sets-aside the impugned order and remands the ..... show that they had any alternative source of power purchase during the period of the contract with uppcl for additional 10 mw i.e. between may, 2006 to february, 2007.8. learned counsel mr. sitesh mukherjee for uppcl further contended that npcl had entered into an agreement after taking into account, the commercial risk involved in the transaction and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
..... consumer amongst thousands of consumers attached to different distribution licensees in a particular area or areas. unquestionably, the matter requires an interpretation or clarification or amendment of the order by the commission alone on the ground that its categorization leaves scope for confusion. the commission states that the respondent no. 3 ..... that it was purely a dispute between a consumer and a distribution licensee. in polyplex corporation ltd., ghaziabad vs. uttrakhand power corporation ltd. reported in 2007 aptel 115 we find that it was explicitly a billing dispute. obviously, this tribunal held that the approach to the said commission was wrong. in dakshin ..... running on commercial basis or otherwise do not find mention in express words in either of the three categories. there is word etc. that can act as esjusdem generis to include a private educational institution, if according to the commission the categorization of htp-ii(a) would include all such private educational .....
Tag this Judgment!