Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member 1. This Appeal has been preferred by Wardha Power Company Ltd. against the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) in the petition filed by the Appellant seeking recovery of dues for supply of electricity in terms of the Power Purchase Agreement. 2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. is the Respondent no.1. The State Commission is the Respondent no.2. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 3.1 The Appellant is a generating company which has set up a power project with 4 units of 135 MW each in Maharashtra. The Appellant participated in the competitive bidding for procurement of power on short term basis by the distribution licensee, the Respondent no.1 herein, in terms of the guidelines for competitive bidding notified by the Central Government for supply of 300 MW power on round the clock basis. 3.2 The bid of the Appellant was accepted and subsequently a Power Purchase Agre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. The comprehensive impugned tariff order for Wind Energy dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission is challenged in these Appeals by different parties. 2. Beta Wind Farm Private Limited has filed the Appeal No.197 of 2012, Indian Wind Power Association has filed Appeal No.198 of 2012. The various Associations of Spinning Mills have filed the Appeal Nos 200, 208 of 2012 and 6 of 2013. Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association has filed the Appeal No.201 of 2012. 3. Beta Wind Farm Private Limited, the Appellant in Appeal No.197 of 2012 is a Wind Energy Generator. 4. Indian Wind Power Associations, the Appellant in Appeal No.198 of 2012 is an Association of Wind Energy Generators. Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association, the Appellant in Appeal No.201 of 2012 is an Association of manufacturers of Wind Turbines. 5. The various Associations of Spinning Mills who are the Appellants in Appeal No.200, 208 of 2012 and 6 of 2013 have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Kerala High Tension (HT) and Extra High Tension (EHT) Industrial Electricity Consumers Association is the Appellant herein. 2. The present Appeal is directed against the tariff order passed by the Kerala State Commission dated 25.7.2012 wherein the State Commission determined the Retail Supply Tariff for the State of Kerala. 3. The short facts are as under: a) The Appellant is the consumers Association comprising of 166 nos. of consumers including more than 29 major industries. b) Out of the members of the Association of HT and EHT industries, about 31 industrial consumers have contracted for a maximum demand of more than 2000 KVA each with Kerala Electricity Board, the Second Respondent. c) Out of them, more than 20 industries draw power at the EHT level from the State Electricity Board. They are the subsidizing category of consumers for the Electricity Board. d) In the State of Kerala, High proportion of Hydel generation in the overall mix has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited is the Appellant herein. M/s. LANCO Tanjore Power Company Limited is the First Respondent. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the Second Respondent. 2. The Appellant, in this Appeal, has challenged the order passed by the State Commission dated 28.9.2012 holding in favour of the First Respondent that the Notice of Recovery sent by the Appellant, was not maintainable. 3. The relevant facts that are required for disposal of the Appeal in short, are as under: (a) M/s. LANCO Tanjore Power Company Limited earlier known as M/s. Aban Power Company Limited was selected through the process of international competitive bidding by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the establishment of 126.13 MW Naptha based Combined Cycle Power Project in Karur District Tamil Nadu. (b) The Power Purchase Agreement was entered into between the Appellant and the First Respondent for th...
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 Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. (1) VBC Ferro Alloys Limited (2) Progressive Constructions Limited and (3) Konaseema Gas Power Limited are the Appellants herein. 2. They have filed this Appeal as against the impugned order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Commission allowing the Petition filed by BESCOM by directing the Appellants to supply power to BESCOM as per the Power Purchase Agreement dated 27.2.2009 entered into between BESCOM and the Appellants. 3. The short facts are follows: (a) The Appellants are engaged in the business of owning, operating and maintaining Generating Station. The Appellants 1 and 2 have jointly formed a Special Purpose Company by the name of M/s. Konaseema Gas Power Limited, the 3rd Appellant with the objective of generating power. (b) The 1st Appellant namely VBC Ferro Alloys Limited, is the leader of the said consortium. (c) The Power Company of Karnataka which is a Government Company had invited bids on 27.5.2007 for purchase of 1500 M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. M/s. Davangere Sugar Company Limited is the Appellant herein. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission is the First Respondent. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), is the Second Respondent. 2. This Appeal has been filed as against the impugned order dated 24.1.2013 determining the amount of compensation to be paid by the Appellant to the BESCOM in view of 3rd party sale made by the Appellant through Open Access. 3. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Appellant is a Generating Company. It entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with KPTCL, the Transmission and Bulk Supply Licensee under Karnataka Reforms Act for the sale of power from its plant situated at Davangere on 17.1.2002. (b) The KPTCL on 5.7.2003 terminated the PPA between the Appellant and KPTCL without assigning any reason. Therefore, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court against the said termination. (c) During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Lanco Amarkantak Power Limited is the Appellant herein. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the impugned order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) in the Application filed by the Appellant for tariff determination pursuant to the Remand order passed by the Honble Supreme Court. 2. The short facts are as follows:- a) The Appellant is a generating Company. It has established a Coal based thermal power project in Korba District, Chhattisgarh. b) The 1st Respondent is the State Commission. c) The Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd (Haryana Power) is the 2nd Respondent which is a Government of Haryana undertaking operating and maintaining generating stations in the State of Haryana. d) The PTC India Ltd., is the Respondent No.3. It is licensed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission to undertake trading in electricity as an Inter-State electricity trader. e) Chhat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Shamanur Sugars Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal as against the Order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission in the Petition filed by the Respondent Distribution Company allowing the claim for damages against the Appellant for the electricity sold by the Appellant to third party during the subsistence of the Power Purchase Agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent Company. 3. The short facts are as follows:- (a) The Appellant Company is a sugar mill having co-generation facility. It generates electricity for its captive consumption and sells the surplus electricity to third party. M/s. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (BESCOM) is the distribution licensee, the 1st Respondent. Karnataka State Commission is the 2nd Respondent. (b) The Appellant Company entered into a Power Purchase Agreement on 07.03.1998 with the then existing Karnataka Electricity Board, the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. œWhether the interpretation of the Central Commission over the certain clauses of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff Regulations, 2009 regarding additional capitalization admissible to Generating Units in determination of tariff is valid or not?? 2. This is the question involved in the Batch of this Appeal. 3. Since the issues raised in these Appeals No. 129,150,167,184,212,224,232,247,252,253 of 2012 and 53 of 2013 are same, thiscommon judgment is being rendered. 4. The short facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are as follows: (a) NTPC, the Appellant is a Generating Company owned by the Central Government. The Central Commission is the first Respondent. The other Respondents are the various beneficiaries of the power projects of the NTPC. (b) The above Appeals arise out of the Impugned Orders passed by the Central Commission on different dates determining the tariff of the Appellant for the period between 1.4.2009 and ...
Tag this Judgment!