Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the Gujarat State Commission dismissing its Petition praying for the direction to the Distribution Licensees not to deduct 15% from the tariff determined by the State Commission for the sale of surplus energy available after captive use; the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as under: (a) The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the Appellant is a Wind Power Generator. The Gujarat State Commission is the First Respondent. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited the 2ndRespondent and Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited the 3rdRespondents are the Distribution Licensees. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, the 4th Respondent is a Transmission Utility. (b) The Appellant during the Financial Year 2008-09 installed 21 MW Wind Turbine Generators comprising of 14 Nos. of Wind Turbine Generators of 1.5 MW each for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles and has a manufacturing facility at Manesar, Haryana. For the purposes of its business activities, Appellant has established a captive power plant having a capacity of 66 MW within the premises of its facility at Manesar, Haryana. 2. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. 2nd Respondent, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Haryana having Southern Haryana as its area of supply. The premises of the Appellant at Manesar fall within the area of supply of the 2nd Respondent (DHBVNL). 3. The Commission has passed the impugned tariff order on 27th May 2011 determining the Annual Revenue Requirement of the 2nd Respondent and retail tariff for the year 2011-12. The Appellant got aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
P.S. Datta, Judicial Member: 1. Introduction: - In all, there are five Appeals being Nos.136 of 2011, 162 of 2011,167 of 2011, 137 of 2011 and 163 of 2011. All the five Appeals arise out of two but almost identical orders passed separately on 7.7.2011 by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission which is one of the Respondents in all the five Appeals. The Appeal no. 136 of 2011, 162 of 2011 and 167 of 2011 relate to the order dated 7.7.2011 which was passed by the Commission in O.P. No.33 of 2010, while Appeal no.137 of 2011 and Appeal no.163 of 2011 relate to the order dated 7.7.2011 which was passed separately by the Commission in O.P. No. 34 of 2010. The Appeal no. 136 of 2011 has been preferred by JSW Steel Ltd. where the Chief Electrical Inspector to Govt. of Karnataka is the Respondent no.2. In Appeal no.162 of 2011, the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Govt. of Karnataka is the Appellant and JSW Steels Ltd. is the Respondent no.2. Gulberga Electricity Supply Company Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
1. All the four Appeals listed above have been filed against the Order of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 21.1.2012 were heard together and are disposed of by the following common judgment. 2. All the Appellants in all these Appeals are large industrial consumers of the 2nd respondent distribution licensees. The first Respondent is the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission). 3. These Appeals have been filed under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the order dated 21.1.2012 passed by the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) in the remand proceedings for re-determination of cross-subsidy in tariff as per the Judgments of this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 102, 103 and 112 of 2010 dated 30.05.2011 and in Appeal No. 57, 67-73 of 2011 dated 2.9.2011 and Order dated 30.09.2011 of Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8093 of 2011. The Appellants are aggrieved of the impugned order in as far as:- (i) T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. The appeal at the instance of Gujarat UrjaVikas Nigam Ltd.( hereinafter to be referred to as GUVNL),preferred against the order dated 21.10.2011 in Petition No. 109 of 2011 passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no.1 herein is concerned with interpretation of certain clauses of a contract called Power Purchase Agreement entered into by and between the appellant GUVNL and the Adani Power Ltd.( hereinafter to be referred to as APL), the respondent No.2 herein on 2.2.2007 in order to find out the contractual obligations of the parties in so far as it relates to the time of commencement of supply of electricity by the APL to the GUVNL.To be more precise, what is the connotation of the words Commercial Operation Date (COD) and Scheduled Commercial Operation Date (SCOD) has been the bone of contention between the appellant and the respondent No.2 and the order impugned having gone in favour of the latter, the appeal is befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member: 1. This Appeal has been filed by Allain Duhangan Hydro Power Ltd against order dated 1.6.2011 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Central Commission) in petition no. 259 of 2010 directing the Appellant to provide connectivity on its dedicated transmission line to Everest Power Pvt. Ltd, the Respondent no. 1 herein, and deciding the procedure for coordinated operation and control of the generating stations and the transmission assets including the terms and conditions for charges to be borne by the Respondent no. 1. 2. The Appellant is a generating company which has established a 192 MW Allain Duhangan Hydro Electric Project in district Kullu of Himachal Pradesh on Build Own Operate and Transfer basis. 3. M/s. Everest Power Pvt. Ltd. is the 1st Respondent which is a generating company and has executed the 100 MW Malana II Hydro Electric Project in Kullu district of Himachal Pradesh. 4. The Ministry of Power, Government of Himachal Pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited is the Appellant herein. M/s. LANCO Tanjore Power Company Limited is the First Respondent. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the Second Respondent. 2. The Appellant, in this Appeal, has challenged the order passed by the State Commission dated 28.9.2012 holding in favour of the First Respondent that the Notice of Recovery sent by the Appellant, was not maintainable. 3. The relevant facts that are required for disposal of the Appeal in short, are as under: (a) M/s. LANCO Tanjore Power Company Limited earlier known as M/s. Aban Power Company Limited was selected through the process of international competitive bidding by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the establishment of 126.13 MW Naptha based Combined Cycle Power Project in Karur District Tamil Nadu. (b) The Power Purchase Agreement was entered into between the Appellant and the First Respondent for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Kerala High Tension (HT) and Extra High Tension (EHT) Industrial Electricity Consumers Association is the Appellant herein. 2. The present Appeal is directed against the tariff order passed by the Kerala State Commission dated 25.7.2012 wherein the State Commission determined the Retail Supply Tariff for the State of Kerala. 3. The short facts are as under: a) The Appellant is the consumers Association comprising of 166 nos. of consumers including more than 29 major industries. b) Out of the members of the Association of HT and EHT industries, about 31 industrial consumers have contracted for a maximum demand of more than 2000 KVA each with Kerala Electricity Board, the Second Respondent. c) Out of them, more than 20 industries draw power at the EHT level from the State Electricity Board. They are the subsidizing category of consumers for the Electricity Board. d) In the State of Kerala, High proportion of Hydel generation in the overall mix has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. The present Appeal has been filed by M/s. Puri Oil Mills Ltd. against the impugned order dated 12.4.2012 passed by Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) rejecting the Petition of the Appellant for re-determination of tariff of their two canal based Mini Hydro Power Plants and amendment of the concluded Power Purchase Agreement entered into with Haryana Power Purchase Centre for sale of power. 2. The Appellant is a generating company which has set up two small Canal based hydro power plants with installed capacity of 1.4 MW each. Haryana Power Purchase Centre which is responsible for procurement of power for the distribution licensees and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., the distribution licensee are the Respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively. The State Commission is the Respondent no.3. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The Appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Haryana Renewable Energy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. The instant Appeal is directed against the impugned tariff order 2012-13, dated 31.3.2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) for determination of railway traction tariff and bulk supply category to the Railway in Madhya Pradesh wherein the State commission had increased the Demand Charges for the Railway Traction supply for existing Rs.220/- per KVA to Rs. 265/- per KVA i.e. @ Rs.45/- per KVA and energy charges from Rs.4.70/KWH to Rs.5.00 /KWH i.e. @ Rs.0.30 per KWH unit for the year 2012-13, effective from 10.4.2012 based on the ARR and Tariff Applications made by the distribution licensees namely, Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (East Discom), Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (West Discom) and Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (Central Discom), (Respondent No. 2 to 4 herein) in Petition No. 72/201...
Tag this Judgment!