Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL791
1. This appeal has been preferred by Hindalco Industries Ltd. Formerly known as Indian Aluminium Company Limited seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Allow this appeal by holding that the findings arrived at by Respondent No. 1 - The West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission with regard to the consumership status of the Appellant vis-is CESC, the obligation of CESC to supply backup power to the Appellant and declaring State Load Despatch Centre as the nodal agency in the Appellant's case are illegal, unfounded and contrary to law and, consequently to set aside the same; and (b) To permit the Appellant to make fresh application before the Nodal Agency for open access; and (c) To hold that the wheeling charges determined by the Respondent No. 1 - Commission is arbitrary and unsustainable being contrary to the Act and the regulation made by the Commission; and (d) Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.2. Heard Mr. Avijeet Kuma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member, J. 1. Five distribution companies in Karnataka have filed these appeals against the orders passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC or the Commission in short) whereby the Commission has determined the Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) and tariff for the distribution companies for the Multi Year Tariff Period 2007-08 to 2009-2010. As the following common issues have been agitated in these appeals, we are disposing these appeals with this common judgment. 1. Truing up for the past period 2. Inadequate Power Purchase Cost allowed. 3. Inclusion of Transmission Losses in calculating loss level for the appellants. 4. Interest and Finance Charges 5. Depreciation and Operation and Maintenance Charges 6. Loss level for Multi Year Tariff Period 7. Fixing Differential Tariffs across different licensees. 2. In addition to the above issues, in Appeal Nos. 15, 21 and 22 of 2008, the following issue is also agitated. 8. Limiting the purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
2. This appeal is directed against the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'APERC') dated December 30, 2006 and March 22, 2007 in O.P. No. 19 of 2006 and Review Petition (SR) No. 9 of 2007 respectively. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh announced a policy for attracting private sector investments in the power sector. The Electricity Board in consonance with the policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh invited bids for short gestation power projects. Pursuant thereto M/s.Nippon Denro Ispat Limited (subsequently known as Ispat Industries Ltd. and now known as M/s. Vemagiri Power Generation Limited) submitted its bid to design, finance, construct, complete, own and operate a liquid fuel based power station of 468 MW capacity at Vemagiri, East Godavari District in Andhra Pradesh. The bid was accepted by the Board and the same was also approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Order under section 123 of Electricity Act 2003 The two appeals viz. the appeal Nos. 26/2007 and 36/2007 arise out of the same impugned order viz the one dated 08 Feb. 2007 passed on a petition filed by the Noida Power Company Ltd (NPCL for short). The detailed facts of the case are available in the two judgments of the two members of the bench. For the purpose of the present order under section 123 Electricity Act 2003, we need to place only the basic facts. 2. NPCL contracted to purchase 10 MW of power from UPPCL on marginal cost. The UPPCL commenced supply of 10 MW w.e.f. 10 May 2006 and raised the bill for this supply for the first time in September 2006. Subsequently in November 2007 UPPCL revised the bill. The NPCL found the rate charged being higher than its expectations and defaulted in paying the bill. UPPCL vide its letter dated 04 Nov. 2001 threatened to discontinue the additional supply of power and restrict the power supply to the original 45 MW for which the parties had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This judgment is to decide two appeals being Appeal No. 26 of 2007 and Appeal No. 36 of 2007. Both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order namely the order of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC or Commission for short) dated 08.02.2007.The order was passed on a Petition by M/s. Noida Power Company Ltd. (NPCL for short), appellant in Appeal No.36/07, under Section 86 of The Electricity Act 2003, read with Section 34 of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act 1999, seeking a direction from the Commission restraining the UP Power Corp. Ltd. (UPPCL for short) from taking any coercive action by withdrawing 10 MW of additional power that was being supplied by the UPPCL to the NPCL under an agreement arrived at in May, 2006.2. From the facts available on record it appears that the parties, namely NPCL and UPPCL, have been in perpetual conflict over the rate on which NPCL had been getting bulk supply of electricity from UPPCL. NPCL obtained a license from Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL182
1. Appeal No. 189 of 2005 was disposed of by this Tribunal vide a judgment dated 14.09.2006. Appeal against the judgment was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The appeal was registered as 238 of 2007 and is still pending. However, vide an order dated 24.08.2007 the Supreme Court observed that the question "as to whether Section 43A of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 as repealed in respect of the State of Uttar Pradesh was applicable in respect of the State of Uttaranchal after the Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act 2000 and till the State Electricity Regulatory Commission was created on 05.09.2002", had not been addressed by us. The Supreme Court directed this Tribunal to record its findings on this issue after hearing the counsel for the parties. Accordingly, the parties counsel were heard. It can be stated at the outset that the controversy is actually related to Sub-section 2 of Section 43A of the Electricity Supply Act and not to the Sub-section 1. We, accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. I have had the advantage of going through the judgment in draft of my learned brother, Mr. A.A. Khan, Technical Member. I respectfully agree with the conclusions arrived at by him. I would, however, like to say a few words of my own with regard to the impact of the fourth proviso to Section 14 and effect of Sections 61, 62 and the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short Act of 2003) on the provisions of the DVC Act, 1948 having a bearing on the tariff, particularly Part-IV of the DVC Act. In this context, it will be necessary to set out Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003: 14. Grant of Licence- The Appropriate Commission may, on an application made to it under Section 15, grant any person licence to any person - c. to undertake trading in electricity as an electricity trader, in any area which may be specified in the licence: Provided that any person engaged in the business of transmission or supply of electricity under the provisions of the repealed laws or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Hon’ble Mr. A.A. Khan, Technical Member Opinion I have gone through the draft judgment of my esteemed colleague on the bench, Judicial Member, Mrs. Justice Manju Goel on the Appeal, which is placed below. While I respectfully differ with her analysis and findings firstly in respect of the fundamental issue of the impugned pre-existing procedure of billing by the Appellant for consumption of energy to Respondent No. 3 as CPP-cum-HT-Consumer which is found to be erroneous by me not being in accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreement and secondly I find that the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable in the instant case. I am in agreement with her on the issue of application of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions of the Limitation Act. I also opine that the principle of conduct of parties to a contract in deciding its future operation is not applicable in the instant case. I additionally find the failure on the part of the Commission in not co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of three appeals and two revision petitions as the point in issue relates to transfer of surplus electricity generated by a company through its captive power plants to its sister concerns set up by its share holders. Appeal No.32 of 2007 is being treated as the lead case.2. Appeal No.32 of 2007 is directed against the order of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'PSERC'/'Commission') dated January 10, 2007 in Petition No. 10 of 2004, whereby the PSERC rejected the petition of the appellant seeking permission to transfer surplus electricity generated by its captive power plant to its sister concern namely Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. until the appellant completes its expansion programme, after which, the whole power generated through its CPP would be utilized by the appellant itself. The petition preferred by the appellant before the PSERC was based on the following averments: i) The appellant is installing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Hon’ble Mr. H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member Appellant has challenged the order dated February 06, 2007 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC or the Commission in short) in Petition No.119/2005, under which the tariff for the period January 14, 2004 to March 31, 2004 and April 01, 2004 to March 31, 2009 of Indira Sagar Hydro Electric Project (ISP in short) of Narmada Hydro Development Corporation, (NHDC in short) was determined. 2. CERC vide the impugned order had determined the tariff of the Indra Sagar HEP in accordance with the provisions of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 ( hereinafter referred to as the Tariff Regulations, 2004). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has raised the following issues in the appeal. ISSUE 1: Date of commercial operation of various units of ISP ISSUE 2: Debt-Equity-Ratio ISSUE 3: Advance against depreciation ISSUE 4: Infirm Power. 3. We now proceed to discuss and ...
Tag this Judgment!