Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL505
1. The present appeal has been preferred by Monnet Ispat Limited praying for the following among other reliefs: (a) To set aside the Impugned Order dated 17^th February, 2006 passed by the second Respondent in Petition No. 30/2005 (M) (b) To hold and declare that upto 28^th February, 2006 the Appellant is governed by Tariff Order No. 3017 dated 24^th February, 2004 issued by the first Respondent with the prior concurrence of the State Government and annexed to the fresh Agreement dated 2^nd April, 2005 entered into by and between the Appellant and the first Respondent; (c) It be ordered and declared that w.e.f. 1^st March, 2006 the Appellant shall be governed by the Tariff Order dated 6^th February, 2006 passed by the CSERC in Petition No. 17/2005(M); (d) To pass any other appropriate order as this Appellate Tribunal may in its discretion deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.2. Heard Dr. A. M. Singhvi learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL851
1. The Appellant namely, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board ("TNEB" for short) has preferred appeals being Appeal Nos. 127, 200 and 201 of 2005, against the Impugned Orders passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (for brevity hereinafter called "Central Commission"). While appeal No. 127 of 2005 has been filed against CERC order dated 4^th August, 2005 in petition No. 81/2005, the Appeal No.200 of 2005 has been filed against the CERC order dated 21^st April, 2005, passed in Review Petition No. 28/2005, and the Appeal No. 201 of 2005 has been filed to challenge the CERC order dated 1^st February, 2005 in petition No. 194/2004. The matter relates to the determination of Tariff for the periods 1997-2002 and 2002-04 for the supply of energy by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation ("NLC" for brief) a central public sector undertaking to the Appellant from its Thermal Power Stations-I (TPS-I). TNEB is the sole beneficiary of the power supplied by TPS-I since its inception. The issue li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL342
1. The Appellant, in these appeals, is basically aggrieved of some of the norms laid down by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short "CERC") for determination of Tariff by its Orders dated 4^th January, 2000, 15^th December, 2000 and 21^st December, 2000. The Appellant has also challenged the Order of the CERC dated 6^th November, 2001, whereby the CERC rejected the prayer of the Appellant to determine Tariff in accordance with pre-existing norms and directed the Appellant to file revised Tariff Petitions based on the norms notified by the Commission as per Orders dated 4^th January, 2000, 15^th December, 2000 and 21^st December, 2000.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Respondents to the maintainability of these appeals. According to the Respondents, the appeals are not maintainable as the Orders dated 4^th January, 2000, 15^th December, 2000 and 21^st December, 2000 passed by the CERC are of no effect whatsoever, since the CERC for determination of Tar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL65
1. All the abovementioned 18 appeals have been preferred by the Appellant, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "NTPC") against the Orders passed on different dates by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the "Central Commission") in different petitions, whereby the Central Commission has determined the tariff for the period from 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2004 for generation and sale of electricity by the various Thermal Power Plants of the "NTPC". The Appellant has submitted that the aforesaid 18 appeals listed hereunder involved common issues and can be clubbed together for decision by a common Order.(i) Implications of decision on norms in Appeal Nos. 53, 54, 55 & 56 of 2006 (ii) Computation of interest on loan--normative or actual whichever is higher (i) Implications of decision on norms in Appeal Nos. 53, 54, 55 & 56 of 2006 (ii) Computation of Interest on loan--normative or actual whichever is higher (i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL1263
This appeal is directed against the Order of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'PSERC'), dated July 23, 2004, whereby it has dismissed the petition of the appellant challenging the demand raised by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'PSEB') on account of Advance Consumption Deposit (for short 'ACD') for the load connected to Turbine Generating (TG) sets installed by the appellant and monthly parallel charges based on the capacity of TG sets connected in parallel with PSEB system. The impugned order also holds that the charges levied by the PSEB are in order.1. The appellant has set up a plant for manufacture of sugar from sugarcane. It uses baggase to generate electricity as a by-product.2. On December 22, 1994, the PSEB granted permission to the appellant to install 2 Nos. TG sets of capacity 3125 KVA each and 2 Nos. DG sets of capacity 320 KVA and 300 KVA, subject to the following conditions: i) TG sets shall run in isolation with the PSEB supp...
Tag this Judgment!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
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
1. The Appellant, M/s Spencer's Retail Ltd., a public limited company having its registered office at Chennai (T.N.) and Corporate office at Kolkata (W.B.) (hereinafter to be called as M/s Spencer) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with the objective of carrying on retailing business in India through various types of formats such as Express, Daily, Super and Hyper Market Stores. The Appellant has filed the instant Appeal against the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (for brevity to be called as 'the Commission/MERC') order dated 18 May 2007 in CaseNo. 65 of 2006 read with Order dated 24 Aug. 2007 in CaseNo. 26 of 2007 and CaseNo. 65 of 2006 relating to determination of Annual Revenue Requirement of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'MSEDCL') applicable for the control period from Financial Year (FY) 2007-08 to Financial Year (FY) 2009-10 and Tariff for FY 2007-08. The proceedings for tariff determinat...
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
1. The appellant is a Government owned company having three power generating stations namely : 2. The respondent No. 2, Delhi Transco Ltd. is a transmission licensee.The appellant and the respondent No. 2 entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) on 30.03.2007. On 29.03.2007, the draft PPA had been approved by Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC or Commission for short). Vide the impugned order dated 22.09.2006, the DERC decided the ARR and tariff applicable to the appellant for generation and sale of electricity from the aforesaid three power plants. The appellant, thereafter, filed a review petition, being No. 54/2006. The review petition having been dismissed vide the other impugned order dated 30.03.2007, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. The present appeal challenges the order dated 22.09.06 in respect of the following aspects: 1. Non consideration of Operation & Maintenance (O&M) charges on actual basis, 3. Non consideration of final outflow t...
Tag this Judgment!