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
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
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) is the Appellant. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited(NIL) is the first Respondent, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Central Commission) is the 2nd Respondent. 2. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has filed these two Appeals Nos.132/2010 and 133/2010 against the impugned orders dated 19.10.2005 and 14.9.2006 respectively, passed by the Central Commission. Even though the impugned orders were passed on 19.10.2005 and 14.9.2006, the Appellant had not chosen to file the Appeals as against those orders within 45 days as prescribed in Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 but has now chosen to file these Appeals as against those orders on 14.5.2010 i.e. nearly after 4 or 5 years 3. Since there is a long delay, the Appellant has filed two separate applications to condone the delay in filing these two Appeals. As far as the Appeal No.132/2010 is concerned, there is a delay of 1668 days in filing the appeal. ...
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 The appeal presents a pure question of law: whether the Tribunal can give directions to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to amend, modify or relax any of the provision of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for determination of Generating Tariff) Regulations, 2009 on the alleged ground that it has been found impossible for the appellant, a generating company within the meaning of Section 2 (28) of the Electricity Act,2003 to reach the benchmarks or the yardstick fixed by the Commission in its said Regulations, 2009, by virtue of the provisions contained in the said Regulations conferring power to the Commission to amend the Regulations. 2. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, following the reforms in the power sector was bifurcated and restructured as a result of which the function of power generation has been vested with the appellant. The function of retail distribution of power has been vested ...
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
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The three appeals preferred by Tata Power Company Ltd. are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order in view of the fact that though the three appeals are directed against three separate orders passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission the issues in respect of the three appeals are common and accordingly a common treatment is deserved. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission is the sole respondent in all the appeals. 2. Appeal No. 17 of 2011 is in relation to the transmission business of Tata Power Company Ltd. which filed Case No.97 of 2009 for approval of truing up for Financial Year 2008-09, Annual Performance Review for Financial Year 2009-10 and Aggregate Revenue Requirement for Financial Year 2010-11 in respect of which the Commission passed an order dated 3.9.2010 which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 3. Appeal No. 18 of 2011 is in relation to the generation business of Tata Power Company Lt...
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!