Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles and has a manufacturing facility at Manesar, Haryana. For the purposes of its business activities, Appellant has established a captive power plant having a capacity of 66 MW within the premises of its facility at Manesar, Haryana. 2. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. 2nd Respondent, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Haryana having Southern Haryana as its area of supply. The premises of the Appellant at Manesar fall within the area of supply of the 2nd Respondent (DHBVNL). 3. The Commission has passed the impugned tariff order on 27th May 2011 determining the Annual Revenue Requirement of the 2nd Respondent and retail tariff for the year 2011-12. The Appellant got aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that cr...
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
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson 1. M/s. Karamchand Thaper and Bros. (C.S.) Ltd is the Appellant herein. M/S. M P Power Trading Co. Ltd is the First Respondent. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the Second Respondent. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 21.2.2012 passed by the State Commission as against the Appellant upholding the contention of M.P State Trading Company Ltd (R-1) that the contract between them was a concluded contract. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are as follows:- (a) M/s.MP Power Trading Company Limited (R-1) invited tenders through the Expression of Interest on 16.4.2009 for the sale of power on firm basis for the period from 16.7.2009 to 30.9.2009. In response to the same, M/s. Karamchand Thaper and Brothers (C.S ) Limited , the Appellant through its letter dated 21.4.2009 made the offer for purchase of the said power. Accepting the said offer, the M P Power Tra...
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
P.S. Datta, Judicial Member: 1. Introduction: - In all, there are five Appeals being Nos.136 of 2011, 162 of 2011,167 of 2011, 137 of 2011 and 163 of 2011. All the five Appeals arise out of two but almost identical orders passed separately on 7.7.2011 by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission which is one of the Respondents in all the five Appeals. The Appeal no. 136 of 2011, 162 of 2011 and 167 of 2011 relate to the order dated 7.7.2011 which was passed by the Commission in O.P. No.33 of 2010, while Appeal no.137 of 2011 and Appeal no.163 of 2011 relate to the order dated 7.7.2011 which was passed separately by the Commission in O.P. No. 34 of 2010. The Appeal no. 136 of 2011 has been preferred by JSW Steel Ltd. where the Chief Electrical Inspector to Govt. of Karnataka is the Respondent no.2. In Appeal no.162 of 2011, the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Govt. of Karnataka is the Appellant and JSW Steels Ltd. is the Respondent no.2. Gulberga Electricity Supply Company Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!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 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 Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the Gujarat State Commission dismissing its Petition praying for the direction to the Distribution Licensees not to deduct 15% from the tariff determined by the State Commission for the sale of surplus energy available after captive use; the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as under: (a) The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the Appellant is a Wind Power Generator. The Gujarat State Commission is the First Respondent. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited the 2ndRespondent and Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited the 3rdRespondents are the Distribution Licensees. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, the 4th Respondent is a Transmission Utility. (b) The Appellant during the Financial Year 2008-09 installed 21 MW Wind Turbine Generators comprising of 14 Nos. of Wind Turbine Generators of 1.5 MW each for the p...
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. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.2011, directing the Appellant to pay the amount to be calculated by the generator, the 1st Respondent, after working of the invoices from the year 2001 to 2006, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as follows: (a) PPN Power Company Private Limited, the 1st Respondent, is a Generating Company. The said Power Company entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the predecessor of the Appellant, on 3.01.1997 for sale of the entire energy generated by the Power Generating Station pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Power Purchase Agreement. Thereafter, the PPN Power Company set up a 330.5 MW Power Generating Station. It had been generating power through a combine cycled gas turbine power station in Nagapattinam District of Tamil Nadu. The Power Company commenced its commerci...
Tag this Judgment!