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)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
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
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL931
1. This Orderwill dispose of three sets of appeals. Appeal Nos. 4, 13, 14, 23, 25, 26 and 35 of 2005 have been filed either by the Power Intensive Industrial Consumers or their associations and are directed against the Order of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC/Commission), dated 14^th June, 2005, to the extent it fixes Tariff for power intensive industrial consumers at the rate of Rs. 3.72 per KWH.2. Appeal No. 36 of 2005, filed by an association of Power Intensive Industrial Consumers, challenges Circular No. 42 of 2005 of the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB/Board) issued in compliance with the Order of the PSERC, dated 14^th June, 2005, whereby Tariff to various categories of consumers were revised.3. The other two appeals being Appeal Nos. 54 and 55 of 2005, have been filed by the PSEB. While Appeal No. 54 of 2005 is directed against the Tariff Order of the PSERC, for the year 2004-2005, dated 30^th November, 2004, the other Appeal, being Appeal No. 55...
Tag this Judgment!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
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)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)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!