Array
(
[0] =>
[1] =>
[2] =>
[3] =>
[4] =>
[5] =>
[6] =>
[7] =>
[8] =>
[9] =>
[10] =>
[11] =>
[12] =>
[13] =>
[14] =>
[15] =>
[16] =>
[17] =>
[18] =>
)
Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. In all the three appeals the appellant North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO in short) has challenged three different orders passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC or the Commission in short) and some of the issues involved in these appeals are common. Therefore, we have taken these appeals together in this judgment.2. In appeal No. 159 of 2005 the appellant has challenged the Commission's order dated August 16, 2005 passed in petition No. 36 of 2003 whereby the Commission had determined the tariff applicable to 250 MW Kopli Hydro Electric Power Project (KHEPP in short) for the period April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2004.3. Whereas the present appeal was filed on October 3, 2005, the appellant had already filed a Review Petition No. 113 of 2005 before the Commission. The appeal was adjourned sine die by this Tribunal pending decision in the Review Petition. The Review Petition was decided by the Commission on June 2, 2006 wherein it had addressed s...
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
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson, J. 1. Lanco Infratech Ltd. is the Appellant herein. 2. The Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission on 27.5.2009 passed an Order in the Application filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board (R2 herein) rejecting to give approval for the grant of letter of intent in favour of the Lanco Infratech Ltd., the Appellant herein being the sole bidder and directing for the fresh bid. Aggrieved by this Order, the Lanco Infratech Ltd. has filed this Appeal. 3. The short facts leading to this Appeal are these: 4. The State of Punjab (R4) decided to set up a Thermal Power Plant of 1320 MW capacity in Patiala District to increase the power generation in the State of Punjab. Accordingly, the State Electricity Board (R2) invited competitive bids on 18.1.2008 for setting up the power plant. 5. Totally 13 bidders participated in the bidding process and out of them 9 bidders were declared qualified, including the Appellant. Out of the 9 bidders, 7 bidders i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
AS PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) is the Appellant herein. Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) is the 1st Respondent. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Central Commission) is the 2nd Respondent. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the Central Commission in the Petition No. 163/08 filed by the NLC, the Ist respondent herein allowing their prayer seeking for the refund of the excess rebate availed by the Appellant and praying for reimbursement of the Income-tax by the Electricity Board to NLC. To understand the core of controversy of this case, it is better to refer to the relevant facts. They are as follows. 3. The Appellant Electricity Board (TNEB) is the Distribution Licensee. The Ist Respondent NLC is owning generating stations at Neyveli. There were several agreements between them for the purchase and supply of Power. The Ist agreement was in the year 19...
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 1. Questions more on law than on facts are involved in this appeal preferred by the Bihar Steel Manufactures Association against the order dated 30.03.2010 whereby the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no 1 herein, on the application dated 10.12.2009 of the respondent no.2, the Bihar State Electricity Board approved levy of fuel and power purchase cost adjustment charges at the rate of 69 paise per unit for the period during October,2008 to March,2009 and the order dated 19.05.2010 whereby the same charges were levied for the period from April 2009 to September, 2009 on the application dated 08.02.2010 filed by the said Board. 2. The appellant is an association of High Tension Specified Service Consumers of the second respondent having nineteen consumers each of whom operates induction furnaces with a dedicated transmission line directly connected with the grid/substation of the said respondent no 2. 3. The State Commission on 24.04.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
MR. RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. Appeal Nos. 102,103 and 112 of 2010 have been filed by M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Balasore Alloys Limited respectively against the order dated 20th March, 2010 of Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the Annual Revenue Requirements and Retail Supply Tariff for the Financial Year 2010-11 of the North Eastern Electricity Supply Company Limited, the distribution licensee. The State Commission is the respondent No. 1. The distribution licensee which supplies electricity to the appellants is the respondent no. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1. The appellants are operating Ferro Alloy plants and are Extra High Voltage (EHT) consumers of respondent no.2/distribution licensee. Even though the appellants are the consumers of the distribution licensee, their premises are connected to the transmission lines and network of the Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited, the transmiss...
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 Appellate Jurisdiction
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. This Appeal has been filed by Nabha Power Ltd. and LandT Power Development Ltd. challenging the order dated 1.10.2012 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission rejecting the claims of the Appellants for tariff adjustment and extension of time in respect of the 2x700 MW Rajpura Thermal Power Project developed under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 pursuant to a competitive bidding process. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The Appellant no.1, Nabha Power Ltd. is a company which is a special purpose vehicle that had been set up initially by the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (œElectricity Board?), for developing Rajpura Thermal Power project under the tariff based competitive bidding. The entire shareholding of Nabha Power Ltd. was subsequently transferred to M/s. LandT Power Development Ltd., the Appellant no.2 herein after having been selected as the successful bidder for the development of the project throu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2005)LCAPTEL1134
1. In these Appeals, the validity of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004, particularly Regulations 16 and 21 thereof have been questioned.The following two issues arise in these two Appeals for our determination: (i) Whether or not, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 are in the nature of subordinate legislation? and (ii) Whether or not, this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the impugned Regulations? 2. Appearing for the Appellants Mr. V.R. Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel urged that the Regulations framed under the Electricity Act, 2003 are not in the nature of subordinate legislation and have an administrative character only. He pointed out that a legislative act results in the formulation of a rule of general application without reference to a particular case or an individual. He submitted that some of the Regulations are not of general ...
Tag this Judgment!