Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. (1) VBC Ferro Alloys Limited (2) Progressive Constructions Limited and (3) Konaseema Gas Power Limited are the Appellants herein. 2. They have filed this Appeal as against the impugned order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Commission allowing the Petition filed by BESCOM by directing the Appellants to supply power to BESCOM as per the Power Purchase Agreement dated 27.2.2009 entered into between BESCOM and the Appellants. 3. The short facts are follows: (a) The Appellants are engaged in the business of owning, operating and maintaining Generating Station. The Appellants 1 and 2 have jointly formed a Special Purpose Company by the name of M/s. Konaseema Gas Power Limited, the 3rd Appellant with the objective of generating power. (b) The 1st Appellant namely VBC Ferro Alloys Limited, is the leader of the said consortium. (c) The Power Company of Karnataka which is a Government Company had invited bids on 27.5.2007 for purchase of 1500 M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. This Appeal has been filed by Nabha Power Ltd. and LandT Power Development Ltd. challenging the order dated 1.10.2012 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission rejecting the claims of the Appellants for tariff adjustment and extension of time in respect of the 2x700 MW Rajpura Thermal Power Project developed under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 pursuant to a competitive bidding process. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The Appellant no.1, Nabha Power Ltd. is a company which is a special purpose vehicle that had been set up initially by the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (œElectricity Board?), for developing Rajpura Thermal Power project under the tariff based competitive bidding. The entire shareholding of Nabha Power Ltd. was subsequently transferred to M/s. LandT Power Development Ltd., the Appellant no.2 herein after having been selected as the successful bidder for the development of the project throu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Shamanur Sugars Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal as against the Order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission in the Petition filed by the Respondent Distribution Company allowing the claim for damages against the Appellant for the electricity sold by the Appellant to third party during the subsistence of the Power Purchase Agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent Company. 3. The short facts are as follows:- (a) The Appellant Company is a sugar mill having co-generation facility. It generates electricity for its captive consumption and sells the surplus electricity to third party. M/s. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (BESCOM) is the distribution licensee, the 1st Respondent. Karnataka State Commission is the 2nd Respondent. (b) The Appellant Company entered into a Power Purchase Agreement on 07.03.1998 with the then existing Karnataka Electricity Board, the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. M/S Noida Power Company Ltd is the Appellant. The 1st Respondent is Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the 2 Respondent. By the order dated 11.12.2009, the State Commission, granted a parallel/second distribution licence to the Respondent No.1 (Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Meerut), in the Greater NOIDA area which is the licenced area of M/S Noida Power Company Limited, the Appellant. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. The short facts which are relevant are as follows: (i) The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority promoted the M/S Noida Power Company Ltd, the Appellant, as the ‘Special Purpose Vehicle for the specific purpose of undertaking distribution and supply of electricity to the consumers in the Greater Noida area. (ii) On 30th August, 1993, the Appellant was granted a licence by the Government of Uttar Pradesh u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member, J. 1) The appeal is directed against the order of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) dated 07.03.08 in Petition No. 1 of 2008. The petition No. 1 of 2008 was filed before the Commission by the appellant, New Delhi Municipal Council and the order has been passed in favour of the appellant. However, the order has a rider. The appellant is aggrieved of the rider and hence the appeal. The facts leading to the appeal are as under: 2) The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the NCTD) issued certain Policy Directions, under section 108 of the Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 28.06.06 and 30.03.07 for the purpose of making power arrangements in Delhi beyond 01.04.07. As per Policy Directions dated 28th June, 2006, w.e.f 01st April, 2007 the responsibility for arranging supply of power in the NCTD was to rest with the distribution companies in accordance to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member: 1. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) passed in Petition No. 67 of 2011 whereby the State Commission has approved the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) of the Appellant for the year 2012-13 and also reviewed the revenue requirements for the year 2011-12. The State Commission has, by the impugned order, allowed the return on equity only at the rate of 15.5% without giving effect to the entire provision under Regulation 15 of the Tariff Regulations of the Central Commission, 2009 applicable in the State of Punjab, namely; grossing up (23.481%) of the return on equity. The State Commission has, by the impugned order also not allowed the Review Petition filed by the Appellant. 2. The present Appeal raises an issue as to whether the tax has to be grossed up on the equity des...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL662
1. In Appeal 31 of 2005, the Appellant, M/s Reliance Energy, hereinafter referred as "REL" for brevity, has prayed this Appellate Tribunal: (i) To set aside the Order dated 3^rd July, 2003, passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) in Case No. 14 of 2002 -- "In the matter of interpretation of Licenses issued to Tata Power Company, to the extent that Tata Power could also undertake retail supply of energy directly to retail consumers and to declare that Tata Power is not entitled or empowered to effect direct supply of energy to consumers except to other Licensees and consumers contemplated in Clause 15 of their Licenses read with Clause VI of the Schedule to the 1910 Act; (ii) To restrain Tata Power by an Order of injunction from effecting any direct supply to energy consumers other than the permitted consumers and also to restrain Tata Power under their Licenses from effecting any direct supply of energy to such consumers having a maximum demand less than 100...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member The appeal is directed against the order of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) dated 07.03.08 in Petition No. 1 of 2008. The petition No. 1 of 2008 was filed before the Commission by the appellant, New Delhi Municipal Council and the order has been passed in favour of the appellant. However, the order has a rider. The appellant is aggrieved of the rider and hence the appeal. The facts leading to the appeal are as under: 2) The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the NCTD) issued certain Policy Directions, under section 108 of the Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 28.06.06 and 30.03.07 for the purpose of making power arrangements in Delhi beyond 01.04.07. As per Policy Directions dated 28th June, 2006, w.e.f 01st April, 2007 the responsibility for arranging supply of power in the NCTD was to rest with the distribution companies in accordance to the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. How is tariff for the Wind Energy Projects to be commissioned during the FY 2010-11 in the State of Rajasthan to be determined? Whether Regulation 85 of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 (for short, ‘the Regulations, 2009’) which provides an indexation formula shall be the sole determining factor for determination of tariff for the Wind Energy Projects to be commissioned during the FY 2010-11? Whether Part III of the Regulations, 2009 will have no relevance for determination of tariff for the projects to be commissioned during FY 2010-11? Whether the doctrine of harmonious construction of different provisions of the Regulations should be invoked for the purpose of determination of tariff for the FY 2010-11 in the case of renewable energy projects? Whether harmonious construction of the different provisions of the Regulations is capable of providing complete rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member. This appeal challenges the order dated May 09, 2006 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC or the Commission in short) in petition No. 197/2004 read with Review Order dated February 05, 2007 in Review Petition No. 46 of 2006 passed by the Commission whereby the Commission has determined the tariff in respect of SALAL Hydro Electric Project of NHPC for the period from April 01, 2004 to March 31, 2009. 2. During the course of hearing before us counsel for the parties agreed that there are only two issues which need to be examined. In this regard our order dated December 10, 2008 is reproduced below: “So far as this appeal is concerned, as pointed out by the counsel for the parties there are two issues: (i) Has the Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that when depreciation recovered in a year is more than the amount of repayment during that year, the entire amount of depreciation is to be considered as repayment of lo...
Tag this Judgment!