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
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. When the appeal was being heard continuously for a number of days the learned counsels for both the parties would for the sake of convenience and also, of course, in lighter vein term the appeal as a ’good will’ case because the whole gamut of the appeal centres round the question whether the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no.1 herein, was legally justified in making some alleged adverse criticisms against the appellant, namely Reliance Infrastructure Limited, a company under the Companies Act, 1956 in its 4-page order dated 9th September, 2010 passed in case no 121 of 2008. 2. Maintainability of the appeal in its present form and prayer has been no doubt, questioned by the Commission which we will advert to at the appropriate place ; for the present the essence of the order as has been expressed in paragraph 7 thereof is reproduced below after which we will revert back to the background of the case in...
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
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...
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
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL101
1. This appeal, preferred by the Appellant, M/s G.M.R. Industries Ltd. of Hyderabad (for short "NCE Co-gen."), is directed against the Order of the first Respondent, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called as "The Commission") dated 17^th July, 2004, in O.P. No. 21 of 2004 and Review Order dated 18^th November, 2004, in R.P. No. 60 of 2004.2. The appeal challenges the aforesaid Orders of the Commission only to the extent that it rejected the claim of the Appellant for the purchase of power by it from the Respondent No. 2, Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Ltd. (for brevity "APTRANSCO"), the latter is entitled to collect the energy charges as per the Tariff applicable to the HT-I category of consumers and for which purpose the maximum demand specified in the Tariff shall be computed by dividing the quantity of energy supplied by the "APTRANSCO" by the total hours in the billing month as mandated in the Article 2.5 of the Power Supply and Purchase Agre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL164
1. This appeal has been preferred by Reliance Energy Ltd. (for short REL) challenging the order dated October 3,2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Impugned Order") passed in case Nos. 25 and 53 of 2005 in the matter of Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) Petition of REL for FY 2005-06 and ARR petition for FY 2006-07 by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), the first Respondent 2. The Appellant, Reliance Energy Ltd. (REL) is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly stated are as under: 3. REL filed its Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) petition for FY 2005-06 on March 1, 2005 based on the Draft Tariff Regulations. The Commission notified the Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2005 on August 23, 2005. In compliance with the Commission directions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. Indian Energy Exchange Limited is the Appellant. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Central Commission) is the first Respondent. Power Exchange India Limited is the second Respondent. 2. The Central Commission on 3.6.2010 passed the impugned order holding that the professional Members of the Appellant Exchange dealing with the money from their clients have violated the Regulations as well as its earlier order dated 24.12.2009 and thereby directing them to implement the same with immediate effect. 3. After the impugned order, was passed, the Appellant filed a petition before the Central Commission seeking extension of time for implementation of the said order. However, the Central Commission dismissed the said petition by the order dated 15.7.2010. 4. The Appellant has challenged both these orders dated 3.6.2010 and 15.7.2010 in this Appeal. The short facts that are relevant for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:- (i) The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL86
1. Appeal No. 269 of 2006 filed by M/s Poddar Alloys (P) Ltd. is directed against the Order dated 13^th November, 2006 passed by Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission (UERC or Commission in short) to the extent it violates the Order dated 2^nd June, 2006 passed by this Tribunal. Appeal No. 12 of 2007 filed by M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Ltd. is also directed against the same Order dated 13^th November, 2006 passed by UERC to the extent it violates the Order dated 2^nd June, 2006 passed by this Tribunal.2. As both the appeals are directed against the same Order of UERC dated 13^th November, 2006 and also to the extent it violates this Tribunal Orders dated 2^nd June, 2006, we are taking both the appeals together.3. All India Consumer Counsel (AICC in short) Uttaranchal, Dehradun filed an application for impleadment as a party in Appeal No. 12 of 2007 which was allowed by us. AICC is an NGO working from Dehradun and has filed the present application for impleadment in the intere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL1350
1. This appeal is directed against the Order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'CERC') dated August 28, 2006, recorded in petition No. 31 of 2004, whereby the appellant was not found to be a fit and proper person for grant of licence for inter-state trading in electricity. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant is a public limited company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It has been in the business of trading of electricity before the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') came into force. Since Section 12 of the Act does not permit any person, unless exempt under Section 13, to undertake trading in electricity without a licence issued under Section 14 of the Act, the appellant filed an application, being Petition No. 31 of 2004, on March 23, 2004 before the CERC for grant of a licence for inter-state trading of 100 million units of electricity in a year in all the five electricity regions. Along with...
Tag this Judgment!