Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL405
1. The Appellant Tata Power Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TPC) is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956. The Appellant is a generating company within the meaning of Clause (28) of Section 2 of Electricity Act, 2003 and also Clause (4A) of Section 2 and a bulk licensee within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ESA, 1948). TPC has been generating and distributing electricity to consumers in Mumbai area for over 80 years. It directly supplies power to railways, refineries, textile mills, port and other vital installations in addition to other industrial, commercial and domestic consumers and also through two distribution Licensees viz BSES (Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Ltd. - now known as Reliance Energy Ltd. - REL) and BEST (Brihan Mumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking). The first Respondent, i.e., Reliance Energy Limited (hereinafter referred as REL) formerly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL543
1. Heard M/s J.J. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate, Anjali Chandurkar, Syed Naqvi and Smieetaa Inna Advocates appearing for Appellant. Dr. G.M. Phadke, Mr. Shantanu Dixit appearing in person, M/s Gaurav Joshi, Alpara Dhaka, Shyam Divan, Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Kiran Gandhi, M. G. Ramachandran, Saumya Sharma, Advocates for Respondents in appeal No. 30 of 2005.2. Heard M/s Ramji Srinivasan and Sanand Ramakrishnan Advocates appearing for Appellant. M/s M.G.R. Joshi, Kiran Gandhi, Rajiv Nanda, Advocates, M/s J.J. Bhatt, Anjali Chandurkar, Syed Naqvi, Smieetaa Inna, M.G. Ramachandran, Saumya Sharma & Taruna Baghel, Gaurav Joshi, Rajiv Nanda, Kiran Gandhi, Vani Mehta, Advocates, Shyam Divan, Advocate for Respondents in appeal No. 164 of 2005.3. Heard M/s Shyam Divan, Rajiv Nanda, G.R. Joshi, Kiran Gandhi and Nishant Gupta Advocates appearing for Appellant. M/s Jawahar Raja, M.G.Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advocates and Dr. G.M. Padke for Respondents in appeal No. 25.4. Appeal No. 30 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL711
1. Appeal No. 20/2006 is directed against the Tariff Order dated 11^th November, 2005 passed by Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission for brevity) in Petition No. 7 of 2005. As second to 7^th Appellant(s) have similar grievances as that of the First Appellant they have joined the First Appellant -- Chhattisgarh Biomass Energy Developers Association (hereafter called CBDA) in preferring this appeal. The Commission vide its Impugned Order dated 11^th November, 2005 disposed of the Petition No. 7 of 2005 filed by the CBDA. The issues as brought out in the Appeal are mentioned in the succeeding paras.1.1 As against the Appellant(s) request for fixation of uniform rate of wheeling charges of 2 per cent in kind (3 per cent as per Power Purchase and wheeling agreements entered into between the Appellants and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board -- CSEB for brevity), the commission-has decided to levy 6 per cent of the energy input into the system towards transmissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL682
1. The abovementioned appeals have been filed against the direction of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereafter called "Commission") contained in its letter dated 9^th August, 2004.All the aforesaid appeals raise identical issues. We have; therefore, decided to take up one of the appeals being appeal No. 4 of 2006 as the lead matter and the decision arrived at on the said appeal shall apply to other appeals being Appeal Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 23 of 2006.2. The Appellant, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter called as "APTRANSCO") and AP Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter called "APSPDCL") are the instrumentalities of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. While APTRANSCO has been assigned the role of state transmission utility owned and operated by Government of Andhra Pradesh, APSPDCL is one of the four distribution companies made responsible for distribution of electricity in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The role...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL237
1. These appeals are directed against a common order of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'APERC'/'Commission') dated June 2, 2006 passed in O.P. Nos. 12/06, 20/06, 21/06, 22/06, 23/06, 24/06, 25/06 and 26/06, whereby the Commission concluded as follows: (a) The Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the petitions to issue directions to modify the terms and conditions of the PPAs entered into between the petitioners and the respondents herein to clarify the actual intent of the various provisions thereof and for their proper implementation and to decide the petitions. (b) The particulars mentioned in Schedule 1 to the PPAs have a bearing on the quantum of electricity generated by the respondent-developers which the petitioners are obliged to purchase, and as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioners are not liable to purchase electricity generated over and above 100% PLF computed on the basis of half-hourly meter readings, less the auxi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL505
1. The present appeal has been preferred by Monnet Ispat Limited praying for the following among other reliefs: (a) To set aside the Impugned Order dated 17^th February, 2006 passed by the second Respondent in Petition No. 30/2005 (M) (b) To hold and declare that upto 28^th February, 2006 the Appellant is governed by Tariff Order No. 3017 dated 24^th February, 2004 issued by the first Respondent with the prior concurrence of the State Government and annexed to the fresh Agreement dated 2^nd April, 2005 entered into by and between the Appellant and the first Respondent; (c) It be ordered and declared that w.e.f. 1^st March, 2006 the Appellant shall be governed by the Tariff Order dated 6^th February, 2006 passed by the CSERC in Petition No. 17/2005(M); (d) To pass any other appropriate order as this Appellate Tribunal may in its discretion deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.2. Heard Dr. A. M. Singhvi learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. Velagapudi Power Generation Ltd is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant is the generator of electricity out of nonconventional energy source. The sanction was accorded to the Appellant in respect of 3 MW bio-mass power plant at Doppalapudi Village, Guntur District. Accordingly, the Appellant entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (R-2) for the purchase of electric energy generated by the Appellant. By revised proceedings, the Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (NEDCAD) or the Corporation in short), the nodal agency, enhanced the capacity from 3 MW to 4 MW. Consequently another PPA was entered into. Since various disputes arose between Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh (R-1) and AP. Transco (R-2), the Appellant filed a petition in OP No. 7 of 2007 before the State Commission seeking for various reliefs in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL600
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant herein, seeking for modification of the Order passed by The West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, hereinafter referred as the State Commission, on 21^st January, 2006 read with its order dated 28^th November, 2005, in the matter Miscellaneous Application for grant of open access for the use of West Bengal State Electricity Board's transmission network for wheeling power from Kolaghat in West Bengal to the Appellant's plant in Bhangihatti and for fixation of transmission charges and other incidental reliefs.2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal could be summarized. The Appellant has set up a Steel Cold Rolling Galvanizing and Pipe Plant at village Bhangihatti in Hooghly district and it is an existing consumer of West Bengal State Electricity Board (WBSEB) with a connected load of 14.9 MVA and a contract demand of 14.9 MVA for its steel plant. The Appellant has located a Captive Power Plant (CPP) at Rengali in Sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. M/s. Penna Electricity Company Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. Challenging the order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission rejecting its claim relating to the underpaid fixed charges of Rs.18.06 under Combined Cycle Operation and the claim of underpaid variable charges of Rs.12.77 Crores under Combined Cycle Operation for the period from 1.7.2006 to 15.6.2009, the Appellant has presented this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Appellant is an independent power producer. The Generating Capacity of the Appellant is 52.8 MW. The technology is gas based Combined Cycle Operation. The generating station is located at Valantharavai Village, Ramnad District in Tamil Nadu. (b) The Generating Station of the Appellant is dedicated to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the first Respondent herein. The entire power generated by the Generator has to be supplied only to the Electricity Board as per the Agreement. When the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Appeal No. 113 of 2010 and another being No. 115 of 2010 are being disposed of by this common judgment and order in view of the fact that both the Appeals arise out of identical question of fact and thus deserving a common treatment on this question of law whether agreement not in consonance with the law has to give way to the law. In Appeal No. 113 of 2010 facts are as under:- 2. The Respondent No.1, namely, OPG Energy (P) Ltd., had a captive generating plant having a generator with capacity of 17.5 MW in respect of which wheeling approval was accorded by the Appellant in respect of the said 17.5 MW of power which was, however, revised and reduced on the request of Respondent No.1 on account of shortage of supply of gas by Gas Authority of India Ltd., from 17.5 MW to 10 MW. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, which is the Respondent No.2 herein, passed an order on 17.07.2008 directing the Appellant to revise the wheeling approval to that...
Tag this Judgment!