Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member, J. The appellant has impugned in this appeal the order dated 22.05.08 passed by Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, respondent No.1 herein and referred to as the Commission hereinafter, in petition No. 22 (L) of 2007 approving the application of respondent No.2 for grant of transmission licence for two lines viz 220 kV double circuit JSPL – OP Jindal Industrial Park 23.7 kV and 220 kV double circuit OP Jindal Park – Jindal Power Ltd. 19 km. The appellant has also impugned the actual licence dated 20.06.08 issued in pursuance to the impugned order dated 22.05.08. The original appellant, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, is a State Electricity Board and successor to the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board for the area of the newly constituted State of Chhattisgarh. The original appellant was reorganized vide a transfer scheme notified by the State Government of Chhattisgarh under section 131 of the Electricity Act 2003 (he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Ms. Manju Goel, Judicial Member The present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.06.2006 passed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the TNERC or the Commission) in M.P. No. 13 of 2004 titled “M/s. SAS Hotels and Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board”. The appellant is a statutory body constituted by Government of Tamil Nadu under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 engaged in the business of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. The respondent No.1 is a company dealing with real estate business as well as running of hotels. Two of its hotels are Hotel Residency, Chennai and Hotel Residency, Coimbatore. In 1986, the appellant set up a wind farm at Mullaikadu. Keeping in view the requirement of these windmills for wheeling of power, the appellant vide B.P. Ms. (FB) No. 129 (Tech. Br.) during 1986 permitted private parties to install windmill generators for generating power for their own use. The appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Mr. H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member, J. This appeal challenges order dated April 29, 2008 passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) whereby the Commission has granted in-principle approval of the project cost of the 2 X 270 MW thermal power project proposed to be set up by the appellant in the state of Punjab. 2. Facts of the case to the extent relevant for this appeal are briefly given below:- 3. The appellant, M/s GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act with the object of engaging in the business of establishing, maintaining, operating a Thermal power station at Goindwal Sahib in the state of Punjab and for supplying electricity from the said station. 4. The Government of Punjab invited bids from prospective project developers’ proposals on the basis of an International Competitive Bidding in the year 1996 to establish a coal based thermal power generation ...
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
H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member, J.In this appeal Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (UPRVUNL in short) has challenged Tariff Order dated March 26, 2007 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission in short) in petition No. 435 of 2007 for the ARR of FY 2007-08 and as modified by the Commission on October 10, 2007 partly allowing the review petition of the appellant. Thus Original Tariff order dated GB March 26, 2007 has merged with the Review Order dated October 10, 2007. 2. We now proceed to deal with the two issues the appellant has agitated before us: 3. Issue No. 1 Exclusion of Capacity of Units under Renovation and Modernization (RandM). 4. Mr. M.G. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the impugned order dated October 10, 2007 the Commission accepted the submissions of the appellant to the effect that the units under Renovation and Modernization (RandM) should not be considered for calculation of the Plant Load Fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member, J. 1) The appeal is directed against the order of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) dated 07.03.08 in Petition No. 1 of 2008. The petition No. 1 of 2008 was filed before the Commission by the appellant, New Delhi Municipal Council and the order has been passed in favour of the appellant. However, the order has a rider. The appellant is aggrieved of the rider and hence the appeal. The facts leading to the appeal are as under: 2) The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the NCTD) issued certain Policy Directions, under section 108 of the Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 28.06.06 and 30.03.07 for the purpose of making power arrangements in Delhi beyond 01.04.07. As per Policy Directions dated 28th June, 2006, w.e.f 01st April, 2007 the responsibility for arranging supply of power in the NCTD was to rest with the distribution companies in accordance to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member The appeal is directed against the order of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) dated 07.03.08 in Petition No. 1 of 2008. The petition No. 1 of 2008 was filed before the Commission by the appellant, New Delhi Municipal Council and the order has been passed in favour of the appellant. However, the order has a rider. The appellant is aggrieved of the rider and hence the appeal. The facts leading to the appeal are as under: 2) The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the NCTD) issued certain Policy Directions, under section 108 of the Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 28.06.06 and 30.03.07 for the purpose of making power arrangements in Delhi beyond 01.04.07. As per Policy Directions dated 28th June, 2006, w.e.f 01st April, 2007 the responsibility for arranging supply of power in the NCTD was to rest with the distribution companies in accordance to the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Mr. H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member. Appeal No. 92 of 2007 challenges the order of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC or the Commission in short) dated April 21, 2007 passed in O.P. No. 27 of 2004. Appeal No. 138 of 2007 challenges the APERC order dated September 14, 2007 in O.P.No. 6 of 2007. 2. In both the appeals No. 92 and 138 of 2007, similar issues have been agitated by the appellant against the impugned orders of the Commission. In view of the similarity of grounds of appeals and the issues involved we have heard both the appeals together. We have taken appeal No. 92 of 2007 as reference and the decisions in this appeal will apply mutatis mutandis to appeal No. 138 of 2007 also. 3. The facts of the case as brought out by the appellant are given hereinunder in brief: 4. A 6 MW biomass co-generation power plant was established by the appellant in pursuance of the policy of the Government of India for the promotion of non-conventional energy ...
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
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!