Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. I have had the advantage of going through the judgment in draft of my learned brother, Mr. A.A. Khan, Technical Member. I respectfully agree with the conclusions arrived at by him. I would, however, like to say a few words of my own with regard to the impact of the fourth proviso to Section 14 and effect of Sections 61, 62 and the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short Act of 2003) on the provisions of the DVC Act, 1948 having a bearing on the tariff, particularly Part-IV of the DVC Act. In this context, it will be necessary to set out Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003: 14. Grant of Licence- The Appropriate Commission may, on an application made to it under Section 15, grant any person licence to any person - c. to undertake trading in electricity as an electricity trader, in any area which may be specified in the licence: Provided that any person engaged in the business of transmission or supply of electricity under the provisions of the repealed laws or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON “What is the Procedure to be followed by the Appropriate Commissions in the penalty proceedings under Section 142 of the electricity Act, 2003?” This question is dealt with in this judgment. 2. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited is the Appellant. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission is the First Respondent. Smt. Santosh Gargya, the Complainant, is the Second Respondent. 3. The State Commission, the first Respondent by the Order dated 22.7.2010, imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Appellant under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for the violation of the Regulations 52 (viii) of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 4. The short facts are these: (i) The Appellant is a Distribution Company engaged in the business of distribution and retail supply of electricity in the South and South West area of National Capital Territory Region of Delhi. (ii) Smt. Santosh Gargya, the secon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. When the appeal was being heard continuously for a number of days the learned counsels for both the parties would for the sake of convenience and also, of course, in lighter vein term the appeal as a ’good will’ case because the whole gamut of the appeal centres round the question whether the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no.1 herein, was legally justified in making some alleged adverse criticisms against the appellant, namely Reliance Infrastructure Limited, a company under the Companies Act, 1956 in its 4-page order dated 9th September, 2010 passed in case no 121 of 2008. 2. Maintainability of the appeal in its present form and prayer has been no doubt, questioned by the Commission which we will advert to at the appropriate place ; for the present the essence of the order as has been expressed in paragraph 7 thereof is reproduced below after which we will revert back to the background of the case in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL77
1. This judgment deals with two appeals. The appeal No. 278 of 2006 has been preferred by Hind Metals & Industries Pvt. Ltd., herein referred to as 'Hind Metals'. The appeal No. 89 of 2007 has been preferred by Nav Bharat Ventures Ltd. which had been earlier known as Nav Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. and Nav chrome Ltd. and being referred to as 'Nav Bharat' in the judgment. Nav Bharat is respondent No. 1 in appeal No.278/2006. Hind Metals is respondent No. 2 in appeal No. 89/2007. The other party in both these appeals is the Orissa Power Transmission Corp. Ltd. which is a successor of Orissa State Electricity Board and is a transmission utility in the State of Orissa. The Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission is respondent No. 3 in both these appeals.We will first deal with appeal No. 278/2006 which challenges two orders namely dated 06.06.06 and 19.08.06 in Case No. 7 & 23 of 2006 passed by Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC for short). The matter revolves round the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This is an Appeal preferred under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 9.05.2013 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the Central Commission) in Review Petition No. 7/RP/2012 filed in Petition No. 136 of 2010 wherein the Central Commission has partly allowed the review petition filed by the Appellant and reviewed the Order dated 11.01.2012 on the aspect of Interest During Construction (IDC) and Incidental Expenses During Construction ((IEDC) to be capitalized from 1.02.2009 to 31.07.2009 in respect of LILO of Ramagundam- Khammam T/L at Warangal Sub-Station (Asset 1) and 2X315 MVA Auto Transformer and 400/220 kV Bays Equipment at Warangal Sub-station (Asset 2). However the Central Commission has rejected the claim of the Appellant in the review petition on the aspect of IDC and IEDC to be capitalized from 1.02.2009 to 31.08.2009 in respect of Combined assets of LILO of Ramagundam-Khamm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. M/s Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., MSPGCL in short, (the Appellant) is a company formed under the Government of Maharashtra General Resolution no. ELA-003/P.K.8588/Bhag-2/Urja-5 dated 24 January 2005, after re-organization of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The Appellant is in the business of generation of electricity in the State of Maharashtra. The Appellant submitted its application for approval of Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Tariff Petition for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 in February 2006 before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC or the Commission).MERC through its order dated 7 September 2006 determined the ARR and tariff for the Appellant. The Appellant sought a review of the above order of the MERC on various issues through petition filed on 19 October 2006, which was disposed of by the MERC through its order dated 07 December 2006. The Appellant was aggrieved by the said order of the MERC, hence has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter `Board’) is the Appellant herein. National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter `NTPC’) is the 1st Respondent. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter `Power Grid Corporation’) is the 2nd Respondent herein. 2. The Appellant filed a petition before the Central Commission praying for declaration that Respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, NTPC and Power Grid Corporation are not entitled to recover grossed-up tax while claiming re-imbursement of Income tax from the Appellant and to issue a direction to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to refund the amount of grossed-up tax recovered from the Appellant for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2009 along with interest. The said petition was ultimately dismissed by the Central Commission by Order dated 27.4.2010. Aggrieved by that, the Appellant has filed this Appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Let us now refer to the rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL698
1. Heard M/s Amit Kapoor, M.G. Ramachandran, P.S. Bhullar and Shailendra Kumar Singh Advocates appearing for the Appellants in all the appeals and Mr. A.N. Haksar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Udayan Jain, Advocate for the Respondent in all the appeals.2. In Appeal No. 43 of 2006, the Appellant M/s Tata Power Trading Company Limited has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Pass an Order setting aside the Impugned Order and Impugned Regulations, taking into account the facts and grounds set out herein in this Appeal Petition. (ii) Adjudicate issues which the Commission has failed to adjudicate.3. In Appeal No. 44 of 2006, the Appellant M/s Reliance Energy Trading Limited has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Pass an Order setting aside the Impugned Order and Impugned Regulations, taking into account the facts and grounds set out herein in this Appeal Petition. (iii) Adjudicate issues which the Commission has failed to adjudicate.4. In Appeal No. 45 of 2006, the Appellant M/s PTC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, J. Power Trading Corporation (PTC) India Ltd., a company situated in New Delhi is the appellant herein. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19/12/08 passed by the Central Commission (CERC) directing the Appellant to enter into the revised PPAs with the utilities in the Eastern Region of India by fixing the trading margin charges not exceeding 4 paise/kilowatt hour (kwh) as provided in the trading regulations, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The Appellant is a trading licensee. As per the Trading Regulations, 2006, the Appellant can collect the trading margin charges which shall not exceed 4 paise/kwh. On coming to know through the examination of the Quarterly Reports submitted by various trading licensees including the Appellant, that the Appellant has been importing electricity from Bhutan and selling the imported electricity within the territory of India, that charging the trading margin charges in the name of service charges exceeding 4 paise/kw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Shri Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. This Appeal has been filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board against the order dated 15..07.2009 passed by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Respondent 2 herein, whereby it held that Kerala State Electricity Board is not authorized or entitled to collect Service Connection Charges from Cochin Port Trust (Respondent 1), a licensee for Cochin Port Trust area. The Commission had directed the Board to refund to Cochin Port Trust the amount collected from it as Service Connection Charges. 2. Kerala State Electricity Board (Appellant) is vertically integrated entity responsible for generation, transmission and distribution in the state of Kerala. Cochin Port Trust Ltd. (Respondent 1) is a deemed licensee under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for distribution of electricity in Cochin Port Trust area at Wellington Island in Kochi. Electricity is supplied by the Port Trust (R1) for its own use and for dis...
Tag this Judgment!