Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 1 short title and commencement Court: appellate tribunal for electricity aptel Page 8 of about 154 results (0.230 seconds)

Gujarat Urjavikas Nigam Limited, Vadodra Vs. Gujarat Electricity Regul ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

..... was free to sell power to any third party prior to the scod. in spirit, this was a declaratory suit within the meaning of section 34 of the specific relief act with no prayer for a declaration to the effect that the apl was under no legal obligation to supply power to the extent of the contracted capacity unless and until .....

In the Matter Of: Delhi Transco Limited, New Delhi Vs. Delhi Electrici ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... provide for the contingency reserves. the perusal of the tariff regulations, 2007 would show that they do not provide for the contingency reserves. therefore, the commission has acted according to the regulations. in view of this, we uphold the order of the commission in regard to the contingency reserve. (vi) the state commission allowed ..... from the facts narrated above, the issue of dvb arrears is simple. the dvb, which stood unbundled after coming into force of the delhi electricity reforms act, 2000 and the transfer scheme was entitled to receive certain payments from the consumers and, perhaps some other parties. at the same time dvb was also ..... 2004-05; and further in tariff order for fy 2006-07 the commission reviewed its decision on contingency reserves and concluded that in accordance with the electricity act, 2003, the commission did not feel the necessity to provide these reserves. further, the terms and conditions for determination of tariff for transmission regulations, 2007 .....

Poddar Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Uttaranchal Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL86

..... except bpl and marginally higher than the effective tariff for agricultural consumers. such an arrangement would defy the rationality. learned counsel submitted that section 61 of the act requires gradual elimination of cross-subsidy and that there are no grounds in law to free the piius from the burden of cross-subsidy as yet. further, ..... consumers will perennially result in higher tariff for the category and, therefore, cannot be justified. at the same time it is also not the intent of the act of inflict tariff shock to the consumers.in view of the above twin conflicting requirements, better approach would be to determine tariff for piu category using average ..... , tariff shock to the extent of rs. 1.27 per unit would have been caused to the remaining consumers including domestic rural consumers. but neither the electricity act, 2003 nor the commission's own regulations notified on 15^th june, 2004 support such an action of the respondent commission. we therefore, direct the commission to .....

Rico Auto Industries Ltd., Omax Vs. Haryana Electricity Regulatory

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL1250

..... need to be reduced progressively and gradually. 5.5.4 the state governments may give advance subsidy to the extent they consider appropriate in terms of section 65 of the act in which case necessary budget provision would be required to be made in advance so that the utility does not suffer financial problems that may affect its operations. efforts ..... 2, 3 & 4 cannot be deprived of their dues towards fuel price in the situation at hand on the plea of limitation prescribed by section 56(2) of the electricity act.11. our attention has been drawn towards regulation no. 4(1) of the tariff regulations 1999 which reads as under: 4(1) no tariff may be amended more frequently ..... in an earlier order of 27.07.00 that there should not be any delay in claiming fsa 3. principles of limitation incorporated in section 56 of the electricity act 2003 was violated by the commission in granting belated claim for fsa 4. the commission failed to appreciate that between 2004 and 2006 there was a large change in .....

The Municipal Corporation of Vs. Maharashtra Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL1404

..... (a) return on regulatory equity, (b) interest on internal funds and (c) return computed in line with the schedule vi of the erstwhile electricity (supply) act, 1948.17. learned counsel for the respondent commission submitted that tribunal has appreciated the above submission and argument of the least cost option and directed that interest on ..... (3) of section 64 of the act.10. learned counsel for the appellant alleged that the impugned order of merc is contrary to its earlier order dated march 09, 2006 read with order dated ..... annum, in indian rupee terms, on the amount of approved equity capital: provided further that in case of a local authority engaged, before the commencement of the act, in the business of distribution of electricity, the opening balance of equity capital shall be stipulated appropriately by the commission in its order passed under sub-section .....

Government of Himachal Pradesh Shimla Vs. the Himachal Pradesh State E ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... consumers except on the basis laid down in section 62(3) of the electricity act, 2003 and direct that the commission re-determine the tariff for the category applicable to the appellant without disturbing the tariff for other categories. resulting ..... the same class of consumers on the basis of ownership for the private and government department. this is not in line with the spirit of the act and, therefore, needs to be corrected. 12. in view of the foregoing discussions we consider it appropriate that the commission does not discriminate between two ..... pumping supply because 99% of lift irrigation schemes are exclusively being used for agriculture purposes. contrary to the provisions of section 62(3) of the electricity act, 2003, national tariff policy, the commission has shown undue preference to the irrigation pumping loads for agriculture purposes set up by private individuals/ societies as their .....

Ntpc Limited Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL7

..... not on account of conduct of the petitioner and is for the circumstances and reasons beyond its control. law does not force a person to do an impossible act. therefore, we consider it necessary to allow one-time relaxation in the normative target availability level for recovery of capacity charges in respect of kawas gps and ..... and conditions applicable for that period. 7. the relaxation, in the normative target availability level granted by order dated 1^st november, 2000 was "one time" act. this, inter alia, was for the reason that target availability level for recovery of capacity (fixed) charges was increased from 62.78 per cent to 80 per ..... on 18^th april, 1998, the beneficiaries consented to the proposal of the ntpc to link kawas and gandhar with hbj pipeline.9. after the electricity regulatory commissions act, 1998 came into force the central commission on 26^th march, 2001 notified the central electricity regulatory commission (terms and conditions of tariff) regulations, 2001. the .....

M/S. Aditya Cement, Raipur Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulato ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... of supply is illegal because the licensee cannot be ready to supply electricity to the consumer without installation of proper meter in terms of section 55 of the act. we feel that the licensee has to install meter before actually supplying the electricity. notice of availability of supply could be given after the distribution mains have been ..... us now examine the supply code. 16. consumer in the supply code is defined as under: consumer means as defined in section 2(15) of the act and for the purpose of this code shall include a person who has applied for an electricity connection or a person who had a connection but whose electricity supply has ..... of new sub-stations, immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the state commission. main according to definition in the act, would mean any supply-line through which electricity is or is intended to be supplied. accordingly, the state commission in the supply code has provided for a time .....

M.P. Power Trading Company Ltd. Vs. National thermal Power Corporation ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... calculating the quantum of the disincentive fee for the other period. 2. against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the high court, under section 16 of the act contending that those documents ought not to have been considered. ultimately, the high court rejected the contentions of the appellant and dismissed the appeal by the order dated 22/9 ..... complexion of the case. admittedly, this finding of the high court has never been challenged in the further appeal. 24. in other words, the high courts finding, endorsing the act of the central commission in accepting the letter dated 12/12/01 and the certificate dated 27/03/03 has become final and as such, the question of admissibility of .....

Bharat Alloys and Energy Limited Vs. Central Power Distribution

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL35

..... the commission has erred in not properly considering the paying capacity of the category of consumers in line with the section 26(c) of a.p. electricity reforms act. he asserted that the appellant had not sought a blanket approval for exemption from the applicability of maintaining 85 per cent load factor but only to exempt them ..... is not drawn from the apcdcl. learned counsel tried to draw a parallel between the section 26(7) of the a.p.electricity reforms act, 1998 and section 62(b) of the act. appellant further submitted that commission's order dismissing its petition is violative of principles of natural justice. the commission has not taken into account ..... giving any such exemption or preference would amount to showing undue preference which is prohibited by both section 62(3) of the electricity act, 2003 as well as section 26(7) of the ap reforms act.13. in the light of rival contentions, the main question which arises for our determination is whether aperc was justified in denying .....