Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: competition amendment act 2007 section 15 amendment of section 21 Court: appellate tribunal for electricity aptel Page 21 of about 264 results (0.190 seconds)

Shree Cement Limited Vs. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission V ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

..... the maximum demand issue to differentiate from other ht consumers. regulation 12 of the rerc (terms and conditions for open access) regulations , 2004 (amended upto 30.03.2007-4th amendment) dealing with the open access agreement provides as under:- 12. open access agreement (1) an open access consumer will enter into a commercial ..... :- a. that while passing the impugned order the state commission has duly considered provisions of the electricity act, 2003, rerc (supply code and connected matters) regulations, 2004, rerc ( term and conditions for open access) 3rd amendment regulation, 2004. the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 06.06.13 is reproduced here under ..... for its consumption the supply of electricity from a person other than distribution licensee of his area of supply. f. that section 49 of the electricity act, 2003 which provides for separate agreement for open access consumers provides as under:- agreements with respect to supply or purchase of electricity. 49. where .....

Shamanur Sugars Limited Vs. M/S. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

..... no direction could be issued to the generating company to supply power to the distribution company. only thereafter, the interim application has been filed by the distribution company for amendment seeking in the main petition for the declaration that the power purchase agreement dated 7.3.1998 and the supplemental ppa dated 5.3.2006 were valid and binding upon ..... term open access to sale 14 mw power by m/s. shamanur sugars ltd.,(ssl) ref: 1) stoa applications dated 20.6.2008 2) cerc order dated 3.12.2007 in respect of the stoa case of m/s. vishwanath sugars ltd.,(vsl) as per new regulations and guidelines for stoa issued by cerc, the consent for sale of ..... respondent is therefore nothing but a breach of the contract and the 1st respondent has to meet the consequences of the breach of contract. 3) section 73 of the contract act, which deals with the consequences of breach of contract, provides that, when a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive .....

National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Chairman Assam S ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... i.e. from april 01, 2000 to march 31, 2001. in this regard sub section 4 of section 62 of the electricity act, 2003 requires that no tariff or part of any tariff may ordinarily be amended, more frequently than once in any financial year except in respect of any changes expressly permitted in the terms of any fuel surcharge ..... above. this prima facie, in our opinion amounts to an error of law, apparent on the face of record. therefore, we allow review of the order dated december 13, 2007 as regards computation of oandm expenses. 9. the above decision of the commission in dhauli ganga squarely applies to the issue in hand in this appeal. accordingly we direct the ..... project for the period from april 01, 2004 to march 31, 2009. appeal no. 60 of 2008 3. this appeal is directed against the order dated december 13, 2007 passed by cerc in petition no. 107 of 2006 whereby the commission has determined the tariff in respect of dhauli ganga hydroelectric project for the period from october 01, 2005 .....

Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Gujarat Urja ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... law applicable governing the sale of power by the generating company to the electricity board was the electricity supply act 1948. the government of india issued notification dated 30.3.1992 under this act. but the said notification had been amended subsequently by the govt. of india by issue of another notification dated 6.11.1995. this notification ..... not follow the principle laid down in hari shankar singhania v. gaur hari singhania (2006) 4 scc 658 and sri ram mills ltd. v. utility premises ltd (2007) 4 scc 599 in considering the question of limitation. on the other hand, it wrongly distinguished the principles laid down in those cases by observing that they are ..... correct. though, hari shankar singhania v. gaur hari singhania (2006) 4 scc 658 case relates to the family dispute, ram mills ltd. v. utility premises ltd (2007) 4 scc 599 which relate to the general dispute has upheld this principle holding that where the negotiations are still on, there will not be any question in regard to .....

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs. Essar Power Limited and ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... establishes that epl is only obliged to generate the electricity up to 300 mw allocated to the electricity board and nothing more. in other words, there is no amendment with regard to the declaration of electricity generated on proportionate basis in the said supplemental agreement dated 18.12.2003. 53. under such circumstances, it is not ..... the supreme court in the case of hari shanker singhania v. gaur hari singhania (2006) vol-4 scc 658 and shree ram mills v. utility premises ltd. (2007) vol-iv scc 599 wherein it was held that where the negotiations were still on there would be no question of starting of the limitation period. these decisions ..... other with regard to matters related to this agreement or any activity contemplated by this agreement. 58. similarly, the explanation to section 73 of the indian contract act provides that in estimating the loss or damage arising from breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the .....

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd Vs. Ppn Power G ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

..... of the court to order compound interest by way of restitution is not fettered in any way. we request the law commission to consider and recommend necessary amendments in relevant laws . 116. the state commission in the impugned order directed the parties to the monthly annual invoice giving effect to the rs.0.15 ..... side:- thiru s. narayanan / managing director thiru b. sundaramurthy / g.m technical. 99. only thereafter, the power company, respondent submitted annual invoices in july, 2007 taking into consideration the decision taken during the minutes of the meeting on 22.1.2005, the communication dated 31.5.2006 of the appellant regarding fixing of the capacity ..... that the appellant cannot claim eligibility for the rebate. 30. the second issue is the jurisdiction and scope of section 86 (1) (f) of the act. 31. according to the appellant, the state commission instead of referring the dispute for arbitration as this case involves various complicated issues, arbitrarily decided to adjudicate .....

Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Ltd., and Another Vs. K ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

..... charges. (c) between 1997-2011, the karnataka power transmission corporation limited (2nd respondent) made regular payments for the supply received from the appellant. however, the law was amended to provide an exemption from the payment of income tax for the 6th to 10th year also. in terms of above, the appellant had benefited against the projected tariff. therefore ..... in corporate tax should be passed on the power procurer within 90 days of the end of the financial year. (f) the appellant in reply dated 25.8.2007 stated that it had not derived savings in income tax liability for the financial year 2005-06 and therefore, no amount was to be refunded on account of changes ..... in the income tax act. (g) thereafter, several letters had been exchanged between the parties on the issue of refund of income tax. ultimately, a decision was arrived at by the power .....

M/S. Karamchand Thaper and Bros (C.S.) Ltd., Vs. M/S. M.P. Power Tradi ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

..... guidelines and all possibilities should be explored for obtaining advance booking as per clause 9 to 12 of cerc regulation no.l-7/105(121)/2007 dated 21.1.09 and amendment made time to time, failing which the compensation shall be applicable for the full/deficit quantum of power in the open access application for ..... acceptance . 23. as per this section, the acceptance must be absolute , unconditional and unqualified 24. let us now refer to section 8 of the indian contract act which reads as under: section 8 acceptance performing conditions, or receiving consideration: performance of the conditions of proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise ..... for sale of above surplus power. this letter also would not indicate that absolute acceptance by the appellant was made and communicated under section 7 of the contract act. on the other hand, it has been intimated to the respondent to look for an alternative arrangement for sale of power. (e) thereafter, there were .....

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

..... matter. (e) that the district magistrate, accordingly, after hearing all parties in exercise of powers under section 7(3) of the indian telegraph act, 1886 passed an order dated 30.4.2007 directing powergrid to realign the lines in a manner that the line would not directly pass over the said survey land. it was at that stage ..... not thought proper to be brought to the notice of the central commission while deciding the original petition and also in the instant review petition. without seeking any amendment in the review petition, the appellant/powergrid tried to explain the same by filing a rejoinder affidavit on 13.9.2012 and that too while submitting reply to ..... or mentioned in the instant review petition, due to which the commissioning of assets 3 and 4 of the appellant petitioner was allegedly got delayed. even no amendment in the review petition was sought by the appellant petitioner during the pendency of the review petition and lastly an attempt was made to introduce the ground of .....

North Eastern Electricity Supply Vs. Orissa Electricity Regulatory

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL278

..... such fixation shall be done within one hundred twenty days from the receipt of application. sub-section (6) of section 64 provides that a tariff order shall unless amended or revoked; continue to be in force for such period as may be specified in the tariff order. section 86 prescribes the functions of the commission.section 86 ..... by the three discoms in para 6.25 of the tariff order. the regulatory commission in table 14, 15 and 16, respectively set out the parameters for 2007-08 in respect of t&d losses, collection efficiency and at&c losses as approved by it in respect of the three discoms. the overall distribution loss percentage ..... and over estimated the revenue while approving the arr? 9. before taking up the points for consideration it is essential to refer the statutory provisions of the electricity act, 2003. section 60(1) provides that the appropriate commission shall be guided by the principles and methodology specified by the central commission for determination of tariff for .....