Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. 1. Both these Appeals No. 77 of 2009 and 86 of 2009 have been heard together and Common Judgment is being rendered as both the Appeals would arise out of the Common Order passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) on 18.02.2009. 2. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, the erstwhile Electricity Board, is the Appellant in Appeal No. 77 of 2009 and Essar Power Ltd. is the Appellant in Appeal No. 86 of 2009. The short facts are as under: 3. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited is the successor of the Electricity Board of Gujarat (Electricity Board). The erstwhile Electricity Board had entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 30.05.1996 with the Essar Power Limited (EPL) for the purchase of power for a period of 20 years. In the same year, on 29.06.1996, the Essar Power Limited entered into another PPA with its sister concern Essar Group of Companies. Under the PPA which was entered with the Electricity Board, the Essa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Mr. A.A. Khan, Technical Member, J. We have two appeals before us. While Appeal No. 02 of 2008 filed by M/s Purti Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘PSKL’) is directed against the impugned order of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short ‘the Commission’) passed on 17.12.2007, the Appeal No. 95 of 2008, filed by M/s Yash Agro Energy Ltd. (for the sake of brevity to be called as ‘Yash Agro’) challenges the impugned order dated 08.08.2008 of the Commission. In both the appeals the respondent no. 5 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (for short ‘MSEDCL’) a successor entity of Maharashtra Electricity Board (MSEB)is involved as the main rival party. 2. The Appellants had separately executed sale/purchase agreements called Energy Purchase Agreement (‘EPA’) with respondent no. 5 MSEDCL to sell electricity generated from their respective generating plants to MSEDCL. As both the af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Mr. V.J. Talwar, Technical Member M/s Ind Barath Energies (Thoothukudi) Ltd is the Appellant (Appellant – 1) in the Appeal No. 125 of 2010. M/s Raghu Ram Renewable Energy Ltd is the Appellant (Appellant -2 ) in the Appeal No. 126 of 2010. Chairman and officers of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) are Respondent No. 1 to 3 in both the appeals. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the 4th Respondent in both the Appeals. 2. These Appeals have been filed by the Appellants aggrieved by the Orders dated 23.10.2009 in DPR No. 3 of 2009 and DPR No. 4 of 2009 passed by the State Commission. Since, the issues are the same, common judgment is being rendered in both the Appeals. The short facts are as under: 3. The Appellants are biomass based Generating Companies. The Respondent TNEB had entered in to the Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) with the 1st Appellant on 15.03.2004 and with 2nd Appellant on 20.06.2002 respectively. 4. Clause 7(a) of the said agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson 1. Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Ltd has filed this Appeal challenging the main order dated 24.11.2011 passed in the OP No.24 of 2011 holding that the Appellant is liable to refund the tax collected from the purchasers as well as the order dated 17.5.2012 passed in Review Petition No.2 of 2012 holding that no ground was made out for Review of the main order. 2. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Government of Karnataka had invited bids for setting up of multi fuel power plants in Karnataka through its Notification dated 25.11.1995. (b) In response to the said notification, the Appellant, M/s. Royalaseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Ltd. submitted its bid to set up a multi fuel power plant at Tagginabudihal village of Bellary District. This was accepted by the Government. Accordingly, the PPA was entered into between the Appellant and the Karnataka Electricity Board on 15.12.1977. (c) The Appellant, accordingly set up the plant a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This appeal arises out of an impugned order dated 28th March, 2012, passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short referred to as State Commission) in Petition No. 45 of 2011, filed by the appellant under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for fixing the tariff for FY 2010-11, in respect of its Bio Mass based Power Plant situated in the State of Punjab. The tariff of the appellant Company has been fixed under the CERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff Determination from Renewable Energy Sources), Regulations, 2009 which had been adopted in the State of Punjab (with minor modifications which are not relevant to the present case). 2. That the appellant is the Biomass based Power Generating Company and the respondent no.1 is the State Regulator for the Electricity. 3. The relevant facts for deciding this Appeal are as under:- 3.1. that the appellant filed a petition under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for Revision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This is an appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, filed by the appellant against the Order dated 06.06.2013, passed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) in Petition No.356-358 of 2012, filed by the distribution licensees (respondents herein) wherein the State Commission had allowed petitions filed by the respondents and determined the Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) and Revision of Retail Tariff for FY 2013-14 including the changes made for the determination of time block for maximum demand in a special manner for open access customers. 2. Thus the State Commission by the impugned order has permitted the respondents/petitioners to change the time block for recording maximum demand for open access consumers to 15 minutes instead of 30 minutes in their tariff booklet. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.06.2013 due to the following aspects: (i) that the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. The above three appeals which were filed as Writ Petitions came to be filed with leave of Hon'ble High court on the file of this Appellate Tribunal by virtue of the order of Hon'ble the Delhi High Court dated 29th August, 2005 made in Writ Petition (C) No.140. of 2005, etc. The appellants moved Writ Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution.The Writ Petitions were heard for a number of days. Ultimately the appellant sought leave to challenge the findings and tariff determination by the Impugned Order before this Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. Recording the same, the Hon'ble High Court passed the following Order: 1. When the petition was filed Appellate Tribunal under Section 110 of the Electricity Act 2003 was not constituted. A tribunal has since been constituted under Section 110 of the Act. A notification has been issued extending limitation by 45 days for filing of appeals. Limitation was to reckon from the date the Tribunal was to come into operation. 2. On an earlie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL1031
1. Relief sought by the Appellants in Appeals Nos. 180 to 197 of 2006 read thus: (a) Allow the appeal with cost, filed against the Impugned Order of the learned Commission and set aside the said Order dated 8^th June, 2006 (b) It may further be declared that the withdrawal of the Incentive Scheme shall not be applicable against the Petitioners due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. (c) The Respondent DISCOMS may be kindly directed to release the entire pending incentive amount from the date of discontinuance within one month. Interest may kindly be allowed on the pending incentive amount from the date of discontinuance at the same rate at which the DISCOMS charge from the consumers for delayed payment and (d) Pass such Order which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. In Appeal No. 226 of 2006 the Appellant has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Set aside the Order dated 17^th December, 2004 and 8^th June, 2006 passed by the Rajasthan E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, respondent No. 6 herein, dated 09th May, 2007, whereby it dismissed the application of the appellant for grant of distribution license.2. The case of the appellant in brief is as under: The appellant, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC for short), a joint venture company of the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, is in the process of constructing a Mass Transit Rapid System for Delhi and part of the system has already been developed and is operative. Electricity is the only source of energy for operation of the metro system. Any interruption in power supply may have serious repercussions on the safety and security of the system and convenience of the passengers. The power supply on a regular basis is required for running the trains of the metro as well as other purposes like illumination at stations, air conditioning and tunnel ventilation in und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. Talwar, Technical Member 1. Chattisgarh State Transmission Company Limited is the Appellant. Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board is the predecessor of the Appellant. 2. M/s R R Energy Limited is the first Respondent. Chhatisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the 2nd Respondent. 3. M/s R R Energy Limited (R-1) is a generating company having rice husk (biomass) based power plant of 14 MW capacity in state of Chhatisgarh. Respondent – 1 has constructed 132 kV line to evacuate power from its power plant. Appellant had charged 15% of the cost of the line as supervision charges from the Respondent – 1 before providing connectivity to its system. State Commission vide its order dated 29.10.2009 directed the Appellant to refund the supervision charges to Respondent -1. 4. Aggrieved by this impugned order of State Commission, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 6. M/s. R.R. Energy Limited, the Respon...
Tag this Judgment!