Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Jan-03-2014
..... seeking for the directions to the haryana power, r-2 to purchase electricity at a tariff calculated in accordance with cerc regulations,2009 and enter into amendments to the psa to reflect the revised tariff in view of the force majeure events and requested the state commission to revise tariff under the psa ..... are no specific financial and operational norms in the state commissions regulations, the central commissions tariff regulations have to be considered. section 61 of the electricity act, 2003 provides that in determining the terms and conditions of tariff the state commission should be guided by the central commissions regulations. the relevant tariff ..... tariff regulations alone should apply. the ptc contended before the state commission that the tariff should be determined as per the provisions of the electricity act,2003 and regulations framed thereafter. even the terminated ppa provided for the applicability of the cerc tariff regulations. however, the state commission has applied .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Jan-07-2014
..... direction could be issued to the generating company to supply power to the distribution company. only thereafter, the interim application has been filed by the distribution company for amendment seeking in the main petition for the declaration that the power purchase agreement dated 7.3.1998 and the supplemental ppa dated 5.3.2006 were valid and binding ..... section 73 of the contract act, which deals with the consequences of breach of contract, provides that, when a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to ..... the ground of termination of the ppa, has not supplied the electricity generated by it to the petitioner and instead has sold the electricity to third parties. this act of the 1st respondent is therefore nothing but a breach of the contract and the 1st respondent has to meet the consequences of the breach of contract. 3) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Jan-27-2014
..... expenditure after prudence check. 88. it is also clear from the perusal of the objects and reasons for framing tariff regulations, 2009 and second amendment to those regulations dated 21.6.2011 that the central commission has provided a separate compensation allowance under operation and maintenance expenses after considering the entire ..... expenditure necessary due to obsolescence or non-availability of spares for successful and efficient operation of the stations. (e) the central commission by this amendment in fact provided for additional capitalization of any capital expenditure necessitated on account of modification required in fuel receipt system arising due to the non-materialization ..... based on available data on additional capitalization in the tariff petitions of ntpc stations. for this purpose, expenditure on new assets in the nature of environment act plan (eap), arising on account of change of law or dealing with design deficiency etc., has not been considered. 21.4 in view of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
..... respect to voltage-wise cost of supply should have been within 20% of the cost of supply at the respective voltage of supply. the legislature by amending section 61(g) of the electricity act by act 26 of 2007 by substituting eliminating cross subsidies has expressed its intent that cross subsidies may not be eliminated. 17. the tariff policy provides that the ..... of the average cost of supply and not on the basis of the category wise cost of supply. the dispensation granted by the oerc is keeping in accord with the amended regulation 7(c) (iii) of the commissions tariff regulations. ii) that further even in the judgments of this tribunal dated 30-5-2011 in tata steel vs oerc in ..... and reduction in dependence on fast depleting petroleum based energy. in view of the above, it is apparent on the face of it that the appellant is catering to the indian economy as a whole, and being the public utility serving the common masses of the country and does not have a profit motive. d. that the para 8.3 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Feb-18-2014
..... be considered at income tax rate including surcharge, cess, etc as applicable during the relevant year in accordance with the provisions of income tax act, 1961 duly amended from time to time. 4. the benefits of tax holiday and the credit for carrying forward losses applicable as per the provisions of the income tax ..... this stage, particularly, when the relevant regulation 25 of the punjab state electricity regulatory commission (terms and conditions for determination of tariff) regulations, 2005 has been amended by notification dated 17.09.2012 settling the whole controversy for the future. 22. all the aforesaid issues are decided against the appellant and appeal merits dismissal ..... return up to the prescribed limit under clause (1) of this regulation in the same currency and the payment on this account shall be made in indian rupees based on the exchange rate on the date of declaration of dividends. the difference in actual exchange rate and the provisional exchange rate considered while .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Mar-05-2014
..... oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the indian evidence act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of ..... mentioned in the instant review petition, due to which the commissioning of assets 3 and 4 of the appellant petitioner was allegedly got delayed. even no amendment in the review petition was sought by the appellant petitioner during the pendency of the review petition and lastly an attempt was made to introduce the ground ..... thought proper to be brought to the notice of the central commission while deciding the original petition and also in the instant review petition. without seeking any amendment in the review petition, the appellant/powergrid tried to explain the same by filing a rejoinder affidavit on 13.9.2012 and that too while submitting reply .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Mar-07-2014
..... demand notice. this shall be subject to review on the basis of any change in nature and the quantum of actual connected load. the board/licensee reserves the right to amend or alter any of the schedules of tariff with the approval of the commission. the rates of tariff given in the schedules are for the year 2005-06 as approved ..... passed relying upon the findings rendered in the earlier order dated 1.8.2012. 34. in this order, the state commission would refer to section 56.2 of the electricity act that if at all any recovery to be made against the consumers, the same must be done within two years from the date when such sum begun due. 35. in ..... nigam limited having connected load of more than 100 kw and supplied at 11 kv, upto 31.03.2010?. the commission further notes that section 56(2) of the electricity act 2003 provides:- notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Mar-10-2014
..... the application seeking clarification/modification of the review order does not amount to seeking review, particularly, when the state commission has reserved the right to make necessary amendments, modifications, alternations in the review order dated 29.6.2010 itself. the second contention of the appellants on this issue is that if the commission was ..... has failed to finalize or declare tariff for the period during which the suo-motu proceedings were continued? this issue also covers the fact that whether such act of the state commission amounts to omission? the learned counsel for the appellants citing the case of shri kishan @ krishan kumar v/s manoj kumar ( ..... , supply, distribution and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail in the state of bihar. (e) that section 86(1)(e) of the electricity act, 2003 mandates the commission to promote co-generation and generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy. the state commission is also under an obligation to decide .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Apr-09-2014
..... electricity regulatory commission (state commission?) rejecting the petition of the appellant for re-determination of tariff of their two canal based mini hydro power plants and amendment of the concluded power purchase agreement entered into with haryana power purchase centre for sale of power. 2. the appellant is a generating company which has ..... also sought third party sale and rec benefits. the appellant wants that the state commission should re-determine project specific tariff under section 62 of the electricity act, 2003. 14. we find that the state commission as per section 86(1)(e) has to promote co-generation and generation of electricity from renewable ..... specifies as under: 6.4 non-conventional sources of energy generation including co-generation: (1) pursuant to provisions of section 86(1)(e) of the act, the appropriate commission shall fix a minimum percentage for purchase of energy from such sources taking into account availability of such resources in the region and its .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on : Apr-11-2014
..... transmission, telephone/mobile exchange/switches including attached offices without any distinction of its ownership of bsnl/mtnl in the category of ml/lt-7. the discoms may amend the tariff schedule accordingly. 18. it would be seen from the said decision that all the telecom operators, without any distinction of ownership, were placed in ..... by the respondent no. 2 to the retail supply consumers including the appellant are determined and regulated by the state commission under the provisions of the electricity act, 2003. (e) that the government of rajasthan issued a policy 2000 for the development and growth of information technology industry in the state of rajasthan and ..... state commission) in petition no. rerc/332/2012, whereby the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner under section 142 read with section 146 of the electricity act, 2003 for the unauthorized action of respondent no.2 jaipur vidyut vitaran nigam ltd in charging tariff for the telecom towers of the appellant as per .....
Tag this Judgment!