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 Appellate Jurisdiction
P.S. Datta, Judicial Member: 1. The Western Electric Supply Company Ltd. (WESCO), a distribution licensee having been aggrieved with the order of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 31.1.2012, the respondent no.1 herein, passed in connection with a proceeding , being no. 85 of 2011 filed by the appellant before the Commission under the OERC (Conditions of Supply ) Code, 2004, on the ground of the said order allegedly being violative and contemptuous ,apart from being illegal, of this Tribunals Judgment dated 5.8.2011 passed in Appeal no.171 of 2010 and Appeal no.187 of 2010 has come up in this Appeal as an appellant with prayer for setting aside the said order in order that this Tribunals order dated 5.8.2011 passed in the aforesaid two appeals is implemented. 2. M/s OCL and Iron and Steel Ltd., the respondent no 2, has a captive generation plant of 14 MW installed capacity and the surplus power of 4 MW was being supplied to the respondent no.3, namely M/s OCL India Ltd....
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!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!